# Guns



## Johnny b

Just read this article in my local news outlet:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news...guns-private-property/zRM04JjmW4S7OKZiwEmMuM/



> Laura Cutilletta, managing attorney for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the statistics don't bear that out.
> 
> "If guns made you safer we would have the lowest crime rate in the world because we have so many guns on our streets," she said. "And yet our gun death rate is so much higher than many other countries. So obviously it is not working the way that the gun rights people are saying it is."


So I went to Wikipedia to look at the stats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#List

Yes, we do have a more gun deaths than most other civilized countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate.jpg

But look how horrendous the homicide rate is in the US compared to the rest in that above chart.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Homicides_compared_to_gun_per_capita._.png

Is this a problem of too many guns.....or more a society that's lost it's moral center?

I think it's the latter.

John.


----------



## Wino

Johnny-be-Good said:


> .................................................................Is this a problem of too many guns.....or more a society that's lost it's moral center?
> 
> I think it's the latter.
> 
> John.


Disclaimer: I own many guns and I'm a liberal. I do agree with your last statement - it's moral decay. As a responsible gun owner I also believe in tighter gun laws and enforcing those we have on the books and attempting to prevent nuts from owning guns. I believe in every gun purchase being checked for criminal activity. I have a concealed handgun license; I've had training on proper use of guns; I took the mandated course in Texas to qualify for a CHL and do not believe in Constitutional Carry laws which allow any scumbag to carry a handgun without training or knowledge. Although now legal in Texas I do not open carry - I have no one I wish to impress and I quit playing cops and robbers / cowboys and Indians around 12 years of age - in short, I believe civilian open carrying is juvenile. I do open carry when in the field / rural areas, but never in suburban /city.

BTW, I do not look to our current president for moral leadership - or anything else for that matter.


----------



## Johnny b

Hi Wino 

Registered Republican.....but that's 'up in the air right now' 

I also have a CC in Ohio, but don't carry. Being almost 71 yrs of age, I just don't hang out at the places I used to nor do I want to.
I grew up on a 100 acre farm so my background is culturally different to plat and city people. A firearm was seen as a tool on the farm. Particularly shotguns and 22 cal rifles. 

I agree with your common sense approach to gun laws.

About the only open carry I can remember ( legal in Ohio ) have been some sales people in gun shops and a few gun racks in pickups during hunting season. And at Goodman's Gun and Knife shows .
Here, many if not most shooting incidents seem to involve stolen/illegally owned pistols.

I haven't seen any stats that show incidents with legal CC.


John


----------



## Wino

In Texas licensed carriers breaking law with gun is around 0.03% of gun related crimes, if memory serves me well, which is close to not much at all. I'm 75, live in a dying neighborhood, too old and poor to move plus it's MY home. I never leave home without my EDC. There are just too many crazies in our area of + 1.5 million people (I believe we are now the 5th largest, down from #9 city). Same here, most gun crimes are gang, theft, road rage, passion related and most with illegally obtained guns by people that should never have been able to own a gun of any kind.

I was brought up around guns my entire life with a family of hunters and gun enthusiast (all liberal, believe it or not). I've carried guns everywhere I'v traveled in continental USA and for sure when camping and backpacking - more for protection from two legged than four. LOL


----------



## bomb #21

2 things.

The list makes it clear that 2 thirds of the US deaths are suicide.

The red/blue chart shows that America is awash with guns but in that context Total Homicides actually looks quite small.

As to the attorney's original point, I've very rarely come across stories of situations being defused by armed good guys. It's (nothing more than) my opinion that packing for protection only increases the probability of someone getting shot.


----------



## Wino

bomb #21 said:


> ................................................................As to the attorney's original point, I've very rarely come across stories of situations being defused by armed good guys. It's (nothing more than) my opinion that packing for protection only increases the probability of someone getting shot.


It does happen and has happened many times in my city where a licensed concealed carrier has prevented disaster in physical attacks on themselves or others (the others is where it gets to be a sticky wicket) or during robberies of person or businesses. We had one recently in a mall just last month. I agree that it increases the chances of someone being shot - hopefully that would be the felon or bad guy and not an innocent bystander. I'll grant it's not an every day occurrence, but it does happen but usually doesn't make anything but local or state news. If you were to believe the crazy right, that would be due to the lefty media not reporting good stories about guns.


----------



## Johnny b

Hi bomb#21 

I saw the figures. We have a high rate of gun deaths, But we also have twice the number of suicides as intended homicides.
With gun deaths as high as they are, it's rather obvious that the gun related suicide rate reflects an unstable society.
I have no objection to restricting firearms from the criminal elements or the mentally ill elements.



> I've very rarely come across stories of situations being defused by armed good guys.


It is rare.
But it has been noted that violent crime, in general, has gone down and it does seem to have a correlation to the enacting of CC laws.

The press plays on murders in cities like Chicago and Detroit.
It simply looks like enforcement is failing.
CC won't likely have much of an impact, imo.
It will take political pressure on the courts and a willingness to support police activity.
But what do we too often have? Politicians and courts that appeal to the base desires of a society bent on drug abuse and too often, plain and simple crime to support their wants. Add into this mix a couple cowboy police officers and you have an adversarial conflict between communities and the law, and in general social unrest.

So there is often the realization ....and I think Wino is expressing it....we are too often on our own in a society that has bad elements.

There are too many guns in the hands of those that are for one reason or another, irresponsible and no gun laws in the US have ever had enough influence to restrict that ownership... usually because they are anti social and not interested in obeying society's laws or mentally ill and unable to conceive the concept of morality .

Would I like a safe gun free society. Sure would. But it has to be made safe, first. And that goes beyond making more laws, it requires a society to heal itself and I'm not seeing any attempt by our leaders. To the contrary.

So when I read of an attorney ragging on legal gun ownership, the first thing I think of is how long will it be before I see her name on a ballot.

<end of rant>

John


----------



## RT

Reckon this will be my rant...
<here begins start of rant>

There are two types of gun owners - the responsible ones and the irresponsible ones. By that I mean the irresponsibles are going to be accident prone, criminals or the mentally or emotionally unstable, and no gun legislation can control that, as much as some folks wish it would.
No law can control emotional crimes nor mental illness.
What I'm saying will be nothing new or something you all haven't already considered, it's just my 2 centavos worth.

I like guns, I use them recreationally, target practice, that sort of thing... but some folks still use firearms for hunting to feed their family, as generations have done before us, before there were big crowded cities. Some people now need them for defense in crime ridden areas, just for some sense of peace of mind that they might be able to defend themselves.
Some have actually used them in the defense of others, if not themselves, and I'm sure everyone has seen this recent story.
There are many stories when guns have saved innocent lives, not taken them. But all most of us ever hear of are the tragedies involving guns.

I like guns in the way as the guy next door admires his car for the fine German (or wherever) engineering, or the person that truly appreciates a fine vintage wine, well crafted... (_hiya Wino_ ) ... or the doctor that can rely on a particular precise surgical instrument to make sure his patient lives, a pilot that relies on the integrity of his aircraft to get the passengers in his charge safely to the destination.

Kids like guns because the first exposure is frequently (now days) a video game, where the consequences of a real gun, in real life will be a concept foreign to them....you shoot , you win in the video...but sometimes the level starts over because you get "killed"...no real thing except a bit of frustration.

I'm not NOT going to into the "video game = violent behavior" thing, nor will I get involved in any political aspects (which, as history has proven = violence). I teach my children and grand children about gun safety FIRST, and the responsibility entailed. I let them shoot real weapons when they are old enough to understand the consequences of their actions. And some of them understand, and some never want to do it again. 
I shoot guns because there are fun for me (safety first), but always realizing they are mostly designed to be weapons. I also realize that many people in the world that have no respect for life, and do crazy things.. And you never know who that could be....

Would I ever shoot some one? God I hope not!
If my life, or my family were in grave danger... (_is there any other kind?_)... could I even do it? 
I don't know, and hope I never need to know.

I keep one at my bedside...just in case...because you never know...

Let me end with a quote by some guy named Clint Eastwood:
_*I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.*_

<and there seems to be end of rant>


----------



## Drabdr

Wino said:


> Disclaimer: I own many guns and I'm a liberal. I do agree with your last statement - it's moral decay. As a responsible gun owner I also believe in tighter gun laws and enforcing those we have on the books and attempting to prevent nuts from owning guns. I believe in every gun purchase being checked for criminal activity. I have a concealed handgun license; I've had training on proper use of guns; I took the mandated course in Texas to qualify for a CHL and do not believe in Constitutional Carry laws which allow any scumbag to carry a handgun without training or knowledge. Although now legal in Texas I do not open carry - I have no one I wish to impress and I quit playing cops and robbers / cowboys and Indians around 12 years of age - in short, I believe civilian open carrying is juvenile. I do open carry when in the field / rural areas, but never in suburban /city.


Agree with everything. Except the BTW.  

I gotta tell you. I'm thinking about CHL for certain circumstances.


----------



## bomb #21

"There are many stories when guns have saved innocent lives, not taken them. But all most of us ever hear of are the tragedies involving guns."

That part lost me. Are you saying you're not most of us and/or have access to alternative info?

"I keep one at my bedside...just in case...because younever know..."

Apparently it's possible to shoot yourself while sleepwalking.


----------



## RT

bomb #21 said:


> That part lost me. Are you saying you're not most of us and/or have access to alternative info?





bomb #21 said:


> "There are many stories when guns have saved innocent lives, not taken them. But all most of us ever hear of are the tragedies involving guns."
> That part lost me. Are you saying you're not most of us and/or have access to alternative info?
> 
> "I keep one at my bedside...just in case...because you never know..."
> 
> Apparently it's possible to shoot yourself while sleepwalking.


By "us" I mean as regular folks that see the TV, or get news online. And you have the same access to information as anyone else, so there are sources available to all. Never heard of any one committing suicide without thinking about and planning it first, or acting on impulse at the moment. But anything is possible. I don't sleepwalk....to my knowledge.... I have heard of shooting one's self in the foot, though...
Guns are even included in the Olympics! ...huh...

Lemme tell you something...unless YOU have been burglarized, your home broken into and all your things you've paid good money for have been taken away from you while you were at work, or whatever...vandalized your home in the process, and even taken PERSONAL things that were of no worth to anyone but you...things your grandmother gave you... memorabilia from your life..

the only thing personal they didn't take was my wife's ashes....Dude they even stole my electric tooth brush, and who in the hell would do that?

This happened to me the day before Thanksgiving. And they stole my food from the fridge and the freezer, also . ...had I been there the mere sight of a gun, even the sound of a 12 gauge shotgun racking a round in the chamber would have scared them away.They were in my house for a long time. The cops were no help.

Four years later another break in. I wasn't gone from the house for less than 2 hours, again at work and they weren't in for 10 minutes it seems.... the obvious things taken - kicked in the door, the TV, DVD player, also guns..anything they could lay hands on quickly...different perps, but again the cops were of no help.This again happened to me on New Year's Eve, so I'm wary of holidays...
Perhaps you see why I'm more cautious and paranoid these days. Again, if I'd been there..

I'm sorry for boring all with this, as I don't want to antagonize or prod anyone into a debate and I was actually going to bow out of this discussion, from my last post, as I mentioned, just a rant,... but you have no idea how violated you feel when you have a break-in and the thugs and slugs go through your closet, your bathroom, look under your mattress..and take anything they wish that doesn't belong to them....
I would gently remind you ,bomb #21, your handle includes many interpretations the TSA might find interesting...

BUT at the same time I hope you realize I'm not starting an argument, nor insulting you... it's just that your post evoked an emotional thing I felt compelled to type out.
it was hard to type without much cursing very much, but this is a family site...


----------



## bomb #21

I've had my handle for many years. I don't live in America. I've yet to be arrested for having a dubious handle. That's all I have to say about that.

"your post evoked an emotional thing I felt compelled to type out. it was hard to type without much cursing very much"

Well, one can see that some editing occurred. Thus one can argue that it's harder to swear online than in real life since with the former it doesn't take effect until you've pressed Enter. An action that can be compared to pulling the trigger.

Let me put it this way. It's really hard to shoot someone. Owning a gun makes it easier. Loading it makes it even easier. Keeping it loaded and close (i.e not locked away) makes it even even easier.

When I read stuff like "had I been there the mere sight of a gun, even the sound of a 12 gauge shotgun racking a round in the chamber would have scared them away" I think "if sight and sound make a difference, why bother with real bullets?".

(I would gently remind you, TA, that if a subject's too close to home you can always steer clear of it. Namasté)


----------



## Johnny b

bomb #21 said:


> ..................
> Let me put it this way. It's really hard to shoot someone. Owning a gun makes it easier. Loading it makes it even easier. Keeping it loaded and close (i.e not locked away) makes it even even easier.
> 
> When I read stuff like "had I been there the mere sight of a gun, even the sound of a 12 gauge shotgun racking a round in the chamber would have scared them away" I think "if sight and sound make a difference, why bother with real bullets?".
> 
> .........................


Extending your logic comes to the conclusion of:

"why bother defending one's self?"

Is defending one's self a bother to anyone else other than the perpetrator of a crime? (remember, my position is one of responsible gun ownership that doesn't include criminals and the mentally disturbed )
Your example focuses around the security of a home, not concealed carry. A much different environment covered in the US by different laws.

Making gun ownership illegal for the general population does not focus on correcting the illegal use of guns by criminals and the mentally disturbed nor the violence they inflict by other means.

In a perfect world, law-biding citizens wouldn't feel the need for self defense.

John, a law-biding citizen with a CC license and home defense.


----------



## Johnny b

Drabdr said:


> ..............
> 
> I gotta tell you. I'm thinking about CHL for certain circumstances.


:up:


----------



## bomb #21

Extending the logic raises the question - why would you? 

Is defending one's self a bother to anyone else other thanthe perpetrator of a crime? Well, now and again kids get hold of home security items and bother themselves to death. So I've heard.

Example focuses around the security of a home, not concealed carry - agreed, notwithstanding I didn't introduce the tangent. However, a point raised might apply to home AND abroad, namely:

Say you're out at night and see someone being mugged. You approach, shout "hey", fire a blank into the air, shout "the next one goes in your skull". Is it *possible* that would deter the mugger?

To be clear, I don't know guns. It may even be possible to load one blank first, live thereafter. I wouldn't mind having a go on one though, to see what it's like.


----------



## Drabdr

bomb #21 said:


> Extending the logic raises the question - why would you?
> 
> Is defending one's self a bother to anyone else other thanthe perpetrator of a crime? Well, now and again kids get hold of home security items and bother themselves to death. So I've heard.
> 
> Example focuses around the security of a home, not concealed carry - agreed, notwithstanding I didn't introduce the tangent. However, a point raised might apply to home AND abroad, namely:
> 
> Say you're out at night and see someone being mugged. You approach, shout "hey", fire a blank into the air, shout "the next one goes in your skull". Is it *possible* that would deter the mugger?
> 
> To be clear, I don't know guns. It may even be possible to load one blank first, live thereafter. I wouldn't mind having a go on one though, to see what it's like.


Hello bomb!

You bring up some valid concerns.

Wino and I don't see eye to eye on many things, but there are some. I wish I could take some of his posts about responsible gun safety and blast it to the entire world. I feel (just me) that there would be a significant reduction in accidental deaths with guns, if people weren't such idiots.


----------



## Johnny b

bomb #21 said:


> Extending the logic raises the question - why would you?
> 
> Is defending one's self a bother to anyone else other thanthe perpetrator of a crime? Well, now and again kids get hold of home security items and bother themselves to death. So I've heard.
> 
> Example focuses around the security of a home, not concealed carry - agreed, notwithstanding I didn't introduce the tangent. However, a point raised might apply to home AND abroad, namely:
> 
> Say you're out at night and see someone being mugged. You approach, shout "hey", fire a blank into the air, shout "the next one goes in your skull". Is it *possible* that would deter the mugger?
> 
> To be clear, I don't know guns. It may even be possible to load one blank first, live thereafter. I wouldn't mind having a go on one though, to see what it's like.





> Extending the logic raises the question - why would you?


That makes little sense, bomb.
All life seeks to survive. And that which wouldn't is obviously subject to the obvious, reality, extinction.



> Is defending one's self a bother to anyone else other thanthe perpetrator of a crime? Well, now and again kids get hold of home security items and bother themselves to death. So I've heard.


Your fist statement doe not lead to the second statement. The second is mostly an issue of parental guidance compounded by youthful ignorance and obviously an issue of responsibility.
Nothing you stated relates to my comments, bomb 



> Example focuses around the security of a home, not concealed carry - agreed, notwithstanding I didn't introduce the tangent. However, a point raised might apply to home AND abroad, namely:
> 
> Say you're out at night and see someone being mugged. You approach, shout "hey", fire a blank into the air, shout "the next one goes in your skull". Is it *possible* that would deter the mugger?


I was trained in my CC class by an NRA instructor.
He made a point of not firing warning shots. The purpose of a cw is for defense.
If you involve yourself into an ongoing crime, different conditions and laws apply.
Once involved, a gun owner should only shoot to defend from *bodily harm*, himself or the victim.
A verbal warning before hand is an optional courtesy. 



> To be clear, I don't know guns. It may even be possible to load one blank first, live thereafter. I wouldn't mind having a go on one though, to see what it's like.


You are arguing to give an attacker a second chance which you may not be able to apply to yourself. 
Events dictate responses.

John


----------



## Wino

Drabdr said:


> Agree with everything. Except the BTW.
> 
> I gotta tell you. I'm thinking about CHL for certain circumstances.


Quit thinking and act.

As for the BTW, at this point and time, if you still have faith in the Giant Orange Cheeto, cancel the thought of CHL'ing - you're obviously mentally unbalanced.


----------



## Drabdr

To me (just me....) part of the challenge with these arguments..
There is very little good data to support crimes thwarted. The statistics in finding crimes not committed is much harder than the date for people killed with a gun.


----------



## Drabdr

Wino said:


> Quit thinking and act.
> 
> As for the BTW, at this point and time, if you still have faith in the Giant Orange Cheeto, cancel the thought of CHL'ing - you're obviously mentally unbalanced.


You're right Wino. These latest shootings at the college campuses really shook me up. Also, the local guy who dropped a shooter in a restaurant. No telling how many lives he saved.

And yes, I still have faith in him. I also have faith in a "Friends" reunion.


----------



## Wino

bomb #21 said:


> Extending the logic raises the question - why would you?
> 
> Is defending one's self a bother to anyone else other thanthe perpetrator of a crime? Well, now and again kids get hold of home security items and bother themselves to death. So I've heard.
> 
> Example focuses around the security of a home, not concealed carry - agreed, notwithstanding I didn't introduce the tangent. However, a point raised might apply to home AND abroad, namely:
> 
> Say you're out at night and see someone being mugged. You approach, shout "hey", fire a blank into the air, shout "the next one goes in your skull". Is it *possible* that would deter the mugger?
> 
> To be clear, I don't know guns. It may even be possible to load one blank first, live thereafter. I wouldn't mind having a go on one though, to see what it's like.


A blank is a bad idea. You may never have the opportunity for a follow up shot.

I carry my CC in condition one - that's one in chamber, ready to go, and have trained to thumb safety off as I draw weapon (semi-auto pistol). I have a fully loaded semi-auto pistol on bedstead with LED 150 Lumen light that will blind anyone it's pointed toward in a darken roomed (no children or wife to worry about) for home defense/security. Plus my EDC (every day carry) is next to it at bed time.

As posted earlier, I never leave home without my EDC - never. This for my own protection.

Not sure what I'd do if someone else is in a dangerous situation (not related or friend to me) as it gets to be a fairly bad thing to insert yourself into a strangers affairs (ask any cop about domestic violence calls). I hope I'm never placed in a situation for myself, much less for a stranger, that I must have to defend myself or shoot anyone to preserve my life or perceived threat to same. This whether home or out and about.

Like RT, I've been burgled - not a pleasant feeling - one while I has home and asleep - that will really get your attention. Makes you a bit cautious forever more. As an example - when I moved into my present home 25 years ago, it had had three previous break ins according to neighbors - two thru front porch windows and one thru side bedroom window. My first order of business was to order a 7 ft. steel cage with keyed gate to surround the entire front porch; next was to extend backyard fence to be flush with front of house that put all bedroom windows in my backyard which had two large dogs wandering around. Knock on wood, no break ins since I've lived here.

Lastly, your last sentence - you'd enjoy the sport of shooting. It is fun and a great stress reliever. Helps relieve any tendencies for aggression. LOL Seriously, the license to carry course in Texas is quite comprehensive - the main stress is on deescalation by LTC'ers - and this has made me more cautious and tolerant of others in all cases of confrontation, be it driving or in public. It also touches on the consequences of stepping into a situation in which you are not involved personally. However, until something arises, no one really knows what they will do when faced with a situation until it happens - then can only hope it's the correct thing.


----------



## RT

bomb #21 said:


> (I would gently remind you, TA, that if a subject's too close to home you can always steer clear of it. Namasté)


I understand, well spoken. And respectfully return to you = Namasté .
Please know my use of your user name was not meant as an insult in any way... I became emotional as I seemed to re-live the anger and frustrations when I was robbed of not only physical worldly possessions, but memories of things that cannot be replaced. I didn't curse or swear on this forum, because it's easy to do so...but every thing would have been ***** ** 


bomb #21 said:


> o be clear, I don't know guns. It may even be possible to load one blank first, live thereafter. I wouldn't mind having a go on one though, to see what it's like.


I invite you to come over and have a go, my friend! And yes a blank fired first might deter, with no harm intended, just a loud statement that the bad guy should stop what he's doing.


----------



## RT

Wino said:


> Lastly, your last sentence - you'd enjoy the sport of shooting. It is fun and a great stress reliever. ~ you'd enjoy the sport of shooting. It is fun and a great stress reliever. Helps relieve any tendencies for aggression.


----------



## bomb #21

Johnny-be-Good said:


> That makes little sense, bomb.
> All life seeks to survive. And that which wouldn't is obviously subject to the obvious, reality, extinction.


Dude. If that's your rationale, will you shortly be moving to a country where you're less likely to be murdered? I submit it's not always "appropriate" to pursue a logical conclusion.



> I was trained in my CC class by an NRA instructor.
> He made a point of not firing warning shots. The purpose of a cw is for defense.
> If you involve yourself into an ongoing crime, different conditions and laws apply.
> Once involved, a gun owner should only shoot to defend from *bodily harm*, himself or the victim.
> A verbal warning before hand is an optional courtesy.
> 
> You are arguing to give an attacker a second chance which you may not be able to apply to yourself.
> Events dictate responses.


I won't pretend to understand most, let alone all, of that. Were an intruder scared off by sight of a gun or a blank fired, that would sound like a successful defence to me. That said ...

"Bodily harm". If you disturb someone and their response is to simply make off you can't shoot them, presumably.


----------



## bomb #21

RT said:


> I understand, well spoken. And respectfully return to you = Namasté .
> Please know my use of your user name was not meant as an insult in any way... I became emotional as I seemed to re-live the anger and frustrations when I was robbed of not only physical worldly possessions, but memories of things that cannot be replaced. I didn't curse or swear on this forum, because it's easy to do so...but every thing would have been ***** **


Sorry the re-living got to you.  However, it's apparent the swearbot doesn't have a problem with "who in the hell would do that?" 



> I invite you to come over and have a go, my friend! And yes a blank fired first might deter, with no harm intended, just a loud statement that the bad guy should stop what he's doing.


Much appreciated. Let's see how things go between the POTUS and N Korea first.


----------



## Johnny b

bomb #21 said:


> Dude. If that's your rationale, will you shortly be moving to a country where you're less likely to be murdered? I submit it's not always "appropriate" to pursue a logical conclusion.
> 
> I won't pretend to understand most, let alone all, of that. Were an intruder scared off by sight of a gun or a blank fired, that would sound like a successful defence to me. That said ...
> 
> "Bodily harm". If you disturb someone and their response is to simply make off you can't shoot them, presumably.





> Dude. If that's your rationale, will you shortly be moving to a country where you're less likely to be murdered? I submit it's not always "appropriate" to pursue a logical conclusion.


Dude (  )
Expressing a position on such a serious issue should always address logic and reality 
Sometimes reality isn't logical, but it has to be discussed in a logical manner or the 'solution' is just as irrational.



> I won't pretend to understand most, let alone all, of that. Were an intruder scared off by sight of a gun or a blank fired, that would sound like a successful defence to me. That said ...


That might be your preference within your society and as always. it's your choice to make for you.
Too much depends on circumstances to present a singular absolute response to all situations and because of that, I address the situation with the caveat of 'bodily harm' being a critical element in making an on the spot/split second decision on defense.



> "Bodily harm". If you disturb someone and their response is to simply make off you can't shoot them, presumably


Indeed.
This was impressed upon me by my NRA instructor.
The law does not allow for shootings in non violent encounters.
Examples:
A car thief steals your car. You may not legally shoot him unless he's doing or attempting to do you bodily harm in the process.
An intruder invades your home. If he entertains violence, the law allows a response.
If you claim he committed violence, shot him and evidence is weak or non existent, you might find a prosecutor filing charges against you.
In Ohio, a CCW license isn't a license to shoot, it's a license to use a fire arm in defense. I suspect most States in the US that license CC are same or similar.

There is bad imagery to the lobbying efforts of the NRA, but their training instructors do seem reasonable and present the practicalities of what a cc license permits, from my experience.

John


----------



## Wino

Texas has a Castle Doctrine (Stand Your Ground) - applies to home or auto or work place. You also may carry a weapon (gun) without a permit/license in your vehicle legally. The following link sheds some light on the subject

https://www.bhwlawfirm.com/deadly-force-self-defense-in-texas/


----------



## Johnny b

bomb #21 said:


> .......
> 
> Much appreciated. Let's see how things go between the POTUS and N Korea first.


Depending on what he does or doesn't do, we might have to move in with you


----------



## bomb #21

Johnny-be-Good said:


> ... That might be your preference within your society ...


To be honest, the idea of a non-lethal firearm option never even occurred to me until RT posted "Would I ever shoot some one? God I hope not!"

Taser might be another option, I guess.



> Depending on what he does or doesn't do, we might have to move in with you


The UK government's aim on net migration is under 100,000 a year. Giving rise to a 200-300 year process.


----------



## RT

bomb #21 said:


> o be honest, the idea of a non-lethal firearm option never even occurred to me until RT posted "Would I ever shoot some one? God I hope not!"


Dude, I rather appreciate your thoughts by quoting there..... no one here wishes harm to another, nor do we wish harm to come to ourselves ... or our families...
The fact is that there are bad people in this world that will do violent things beyond the normal. Oh, don't take issue with "normal" my friend (you get my meaning, I suspect 
Uh, there have been some unforeseen consequences of being Tased...but there are volunteers who agree to be Tased while in training for law enforcement...

This occurred to me, that in some countries that have banned guns, violence still happens in the form of stabbings, and beatings... too often...
And often is the case, it is the result is caused by domestic disputes, or greed, or madness, perhaps fueled by drug use and a general lack of respect for human (or other) lives other than their own...
And no, I do not submit statistics here, just an observation from my talks and visits with my dear friend in Great Britain, where no guns are usually allowed (except for the police, because they have to deal with it, when duty calls)....the news I watched while visiting another country without guns was just as depressing as the news from my own country.

I would like to make a joke here to make everyone appreciate all our situations .... but *** ***** **, I can't think of one right now that would makes us all laugh, at the same time.. _<sigh>_

but the fact is it's no laughing matter at all...


----------



## Johnny b

Just facts.

Stated earlier in a Wikipedia chart:
Gun death rate by homicide 3.43 ....by suicide 6.69...per 100,000.

IMO, obviously a troubled society.

But how does that compare to, say, auto, drug and general cause deaths?

CDC has this 
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
2014


> All injury deaths
> 
> Number of deaths: 199,756
> Deaths per 100,000 population: 62.6
> 
> All poisoning deaths
> 
> Number of deaths: 51,966
> Deaths per 100,000 population: 16.3
> 
> Motor vehicle traffic deaths
> 
> Number of deaths: 33,736
> Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6
> 
> All firearm deaths
> 
> Number of deaths: 33,599
> Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.5


A break down for drug deaths



> Mortality: Drug poisoning deaths
> 
> Deaths per 100,000 population: 14.8 (2014)
> Drug poisoning opioid analgesic deaths per 100,000 population: 5.9 (2014)
> Drug poisoning heroin deaths per 100,000 population: 3.3 (2014)


While the above neither argues for or against gun control, imo, it does show a rather twisted view on how the value of life is determined by our activities as a society.


----------



## Wino

Comparing death method numbers is a red herring IMHO. Gun nuts are infatuated with comparing auto to gun, which only have death in common and have nothing else to connect the two. Guns have one use - killing - that's what they were designed for - yes, they can be sporting (target, skeet, game, etc). The next argument you get when banning guns arise is why not ban auto's, knives, baseball bats, ropes, etal that can also be used to kill (animal or human or space invaders). Another red herring - everything else also has a useful purpose, not just to kill as is a gun. I do agree with gunners that "people kill, not guns" and same applies to all other violent methods of death.

Wish I knew a way to reduce gun deaths, but don't have a clue. Our constitution, as currently interpreted, doesn't allow us to prevent anyone from legally obtaining a weapon and in no way prevents people with bad intentions from buying or stealing a gun. When nothing happened after Sandy Hook to reduce chances of a slaughter, I pretty much figured it was a hopeless cause. Maybe by 2100's some semblance of gun control may be introduced, but I seriously doubt it.


----------



## Johnny b

Wino said:


> Comparing death method numbers is a red herring IMHO. ..................................


I agree if the point is to rationalize unrestricted gun ownership.
My point is, and I should have been more obvious, a society can't logically address one problem involving deaths with such critical abhorrence while taking lesser positions on more serious mortality issues.
And that is what the stats I posted infer when compared to many current political positions.


----------



## JohnJamesIII

Lots of info here, both for and against.

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...0j0i10k1j0i22i10i30k1j0i22i30k1.0.6UDyRQ7JKqw

Read, and read some more. Then try to make up your mind. 

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...0j0i10k1j0i22i10i30k1j0i22i30k1.0.6UDyRQ7JKqw


----------



## Johnny b

It might be easier to define the problem than solve it.

The real problem to solve is obvious. How can we stop the killing in a society that's becoming more morally decrepit as time passes?
The problem has become a political football in a reality where both political parties perpetuate the decline.

How are people made to be moral?

If it's taught by example, we have too few politicians and religious leaders showing us the way and too many of us that continually support the elements leading that are part of the problem.
And parents, more concerned with consumerism and the ability to afford the credit terms......than the family? Or getting high on opioids. Or alcohol. Or pot.
Just reading the news daily demonstrates a wide scale of depravity too great to list here.

If it's laws, it's obvious that's failing.

Maybe there is no solution as long as the voters of the US seriously consider electing leaders that hold groups like the Aryan Brotherhood and the KKK in high regard. as currently seen.
Or continually press for a socialist way of life at the expense of the middle class as seen in the past administration.

And I shouldn't leave out the neo-con corporate socialists of the Bush era that now reimage themselves as Libertarians following that nutcase R Paul in his quest for an intellectual autocracy ( dictatorship that is ) or the loons of the Tea Party that want to reimage government back to the early 1800's.

Like I posted. Easier to define than to solve 

But in the mean time, I have my CC license for personal defense if needed, and several firearms in my home.


----------



## steppenwolf

so why dont you discuss Switzerland?lots of guns there and almost no crime


----------



## steppenwolf

"
"Just read this article in my local news outlet:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news...guns-private-property/zRM04JjmW4S7OKZiwEmMuM/

Laura Cutilletta, managing attorney for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the statistics don't bear that out.

"If guns made you safer we would have the lowest crime rate in the world because we have so many guns on our streets," she said. "And yet our gun death rate is so much higher than many other countries. So obviously it is not working the way that the gun rights people are saying it is.""

what a bunch of crap!!!!!!-USA is a huge country with one forth the same population as china with many various laws and the places that do allow legal guns have a lot less crime than chicago where everythings illegal


----------



## Johnny b

steppenwolf said:


> so why dont you discuss Switzerland?lots of guns there and almost no crime


Maybe you haven't noticed, Switzerland is on a far away continent with different cultural and social attitudes?

We could be discussing Australia where they ban all civilian firearms, but the same applies.

To solve America's problems, the problems have to be solved with solutions that address our society, not necessarily their's.


----------



## Johnny b

steppenwolf said:


> "
> "Just read this article in my local news outlet:
> 
> http://www.daytondailynews.com/news...guns-private-property/zRM04JjmW4S7OKZiwEmMuM/
> 
> Laura Cutilletta, managing attorney for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the statistics don't bear that out.
> 
> "If guns made you safer we would have the lowest crime rate in the world because we have so many guns on our streets," she said. "And yet our gun death rate is so much higher than many other countries. So obviously it is not working the way that the gun rights people are saying it is.""
> 
> what a bunch of crap!!!!!!-USA is a huge country with one forth the same population as china with many various laws and the places that do allow legal guns have a lot less crime than chicago where everythings illegal


Yes. So the problem goes beyond legal ownership by mentally stable people.
The US has become a nation with too many unstable/criminal people.
General morality seems to continually decline.
Both political parties push gun rights as a political football with out addressing the core issue.

Little respect for life.

As a generality, one party advocates removing all firearms, the other advocates guns for all.
Result is, on one hand, innocent people can't defend themselves from the insanity of the times, on the other hand, the mentally disturbed and criminal elements have easy access to guns legally and/or illegally.

That's the image of a society in decline.

Here's a link again to a news outlet in my area showing the insanity of gun regulation:

https://www.daytondailynews.com/new...or-candidates-far-apart/i8Z8UEeItQQei0Z2a6773

If you read it, notice that nothing is addressed about the mental state of the area.
It's in a crisis over drug abuse, specifically opioid abuse. Our problem with opioid abuse is getting national attention while politicians polarize the gun issue while ignoring the moral decline.

So, here's the flip side of 'no guns':

https://www.daytondailynews.com/new...arry-guns-high-school/200gZDakwOg2RbKMJReDDL/

Not only is the guy trying to weasel out of stupid comments, his original position is still his current position, legally arm students with 'long guns'.
Remember? This is an argument made where drug abuse is rampant.

And so a polarized public performs knee-jerk solutions and not much will likely change other than written law.


----------



## steppenwolf

Johnny-be-Good said:


> Maybe you haven't noticed, Switzerland is on a far away continent with different cultural and social attitudes?
> 
> We could be discussing Australia where they ban all civilian firearms, but the same applies.
> 
> To solve America's problems, the problems have to be solved with solutions that address our society, not necessarily their's.


2nd amendment is in the bill of rights-it isnt on a whim or how the wind is blowing


----------



## Johnny b

steppenwolf said:


> 2nd amendment is in the bill of rights-it isnt on a whim or how the wind is blowing


Indeed.

So why has Trump recently suggested giving up that right and removing guns by means of arbitrary discretion rather than through legal means?

And I point out, the 2nd amendment isn't and wasn't, configured to address mental instability.

A few questions for you
.....do you think it's practical to allow mentally unstable people to legally purchase guns as Trump has maneuvered?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/t...obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-illnesses/

Should criminals convicted of gun related crimes and violence in general, be allowed to legally own firearms?


----------



## RT

"Should criminals convicted of gun related crimes and violence in general, be allowed to legally own firearms?"
Nope, but that's already a law, if a felony were committed. But bad guys generally have little respect for law and order.
But if some nut wishes to harm another human there are plenty of things that can be used as weapons. Been done throughout history, long before guns were even invented.
Of course we all hoped that humanity would have evolved beyond that sort of thing by now, but that's simply not an accurate statement. 

And perhaps a hopeless hope.


----------



## Johnny b

Morning RT 

I tossed out those question, not on their present status but to see what stepenwolf's position is. 

I kinda doubt he'll respond, he seldom does.
But, there's the chance.


----------



## RT

'Morning John 

Ya know it's St Patrick's day and I have one small box of green tipped ammo...perhaps I will unleash a few (in a purely recreational fashion) at a paper target, or perhaps a water jug with green dye in it, as the weather is going to be quite mild.

Won't bother my neighbors, they shoot more than I do, unless my buddy comes over...and we'll shoot til we get tired - which doesn't take much anymore 
And then there's the cleaning


----------



## steppenwolf

i could try to reply.ive been on computer too long and the screen i think will blind me one day


----------



## steppenwolf

trump and guns and "mental illness"?a soldier with ptsd? i dont know most are ok i guess...american psychiatry is mumbo jumbo

theres some book called psychiatrists the men behind hitler-they wield power over us and doctors demand we give kids vaccines

the usa is so screwed, up its unreal

i probably have ptsd ,ocd ,maybe schzoaffective -no tickets no criminal history


----------



## steppenwolf

but in usa labels are all bullsh and people in most countries dont even hear voices as american crazies do

who wouldn't be crazy living in this ridiculous country


----------



## Johnny b

steppenwolf said:


> trump and guns and "mental illness"?a soldier with ptsd? i dont know most are ok i guess...american psychiatry is mumbo jumbo
> 
> theres some book called psychiatrists the men behind hitler-they wield power over us and doctors demand we give kids vaccines
> 
> the usa is so screwed, up its unreal
> 
> i probably have ptsd ,ocd ,maybe schzoaffective -no tickets no criminal history


In my humble opinion, some of your post doesn't make sense.
And if you do have schizoaffective disorder, that might be why.

The issue of mental illness is a concern that spans the society, not that it's linked only to soldiers. Of the school killings, it's been mostly students doing the killing so they wouldn't have been exposed to the terrors of warfare that brings about PTSD in soldiers.
No doubt victinized students can be afflicted with PTSD when the mentally ill try to murder them in a mass killing

I have no idea why you injected Hitler into the topic. Or vaccines.

Yes, the US is currently screwed up. 
One bad President after another, a Congress polarized to the point of being ineffectual and a Supreme Court whose Judges are too often elected by politics rather than their merits. 
A populace that votes on sound bites and emotion while consuming legendary amounts of addictive drugs.
A growing populace that no longer seems to want to protect and advance the concept of democracy.
The idiotic idea that corporate socialism is a form of capitalism and that the trickle down theory advances the middle class.
Toss in the left wing socialists and you have the perfect storm for a failing society.



Why do I laugh?

Because it's all so obvious.


----------



## Johnny b

steppenwolf said:


> but in usa labels are all bullsh and people in most countries dont even hear voices as american crazies do
> 
> who wouldn't be crazy living in this ridiculous country


You have a point there.

But I have a hole in my brain the size of my fist.
Why is it I can view the situation objectively while much of our society is polarized to extreme positions that do few any good?
Why does the general public accept the sound bites of politicians unquestionably?
Why are our standards of the past eroding away as time passes?
The above questions were mostly rhetorical.
IMO, the public has had it too easy for too long. It's gotten lazy and falls back on blaming others for their own status in life. Too many desire to be 'king' on a pauper's budget or entitlements.
But the leaders make out very well with promises they seldom keep


----------



## steppenwolf

well then copy and paste in the phrases and ill try to clarify-i think im clear enough


----------



## steppenwolf

i dont type well and i get tired i guess-i also have phn pain from shingles in my head google phn shingles 

dont label me too much i voted for jimmy carter once and clinton once and john kerry and im not a total trump groupie


----------



## steppenwolf

how did you get hole in head?


----------



## Johnny b

Tumor....meningioma. Non malignant.
I was expected to come out of the operation not much more than a vegetable because of the size of the tumor. But they didn't tell me that until I was being released from the hospital 
My neurosurgeon said I was one of the few to make a full recovery. 
But I still have to do MRI followups.

Sorry to hear of the phn shingles. Nasty.
I didn't have to deal with any pain issues.


----------



## Johnny b

steppenwolf said:


> .......................
> 
> dont label me too much i voted for jimmy carter once and clinton once and john kerry and im not a total trump groupie


I've voted around a bit also.
I'm a registered Republican. But the mood of the party was a lot different when I first joined some 50 years ago.
Too many times I've voted for the 'lesser of two evils'.
I'm done with that.
I'll either vote for someone responsible with the idea of managing and protecting a society, or I won't vote.
So I didn't vote on the Presidential ticket in the last election.


----------



## steppenwolf

well thats amazing youre doing well johnny


----------



## steppenwolf

50 years ago we had nixon who was liberal but was anti communist in vietnam i guess


----------



## steppenwolf

https://www.rt.com/news/422199-fran...notifications&utm_campaign=push_notifications

*French cop injured after hostage swap in standoff with 'Islamist terrorist' dies - Interior Minister*
Published time: 24 Mar, 2018 05:21

weird that these" friendly new immigrants" never realize France is a gun free zone -cant they read??maybe the cops forgot to tell them at the border


----------



## Johnny b

steppenwolf said:


> 50 years ago we had nixon who was liberal but was anti communist in vietnam i guess


The terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' had different meanings back in the 60's.
Not so much the extremists seen today.
Nixon was more a moderate of the times and had nothing to do with the socialism we see today.
He was hated by the left long before Watergate on his Vietnam position, which he inherited rather than create.

But he could really sweat in front of a camera when asked what he was up to


----------



## Johnny b

While students demonstrate against gun rights, the following headline reminds me of a past headline.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ft-behind-unemotional-trail-murder/454173002/

Essentially a mentally ill young man intent on killing people with bombs.

Back in 1966, a guy by the name of Whitman climbed a bell tower at a university after killing his mother and wife, started shooting. He killed 14 people.
It made national news.
I remember it being said that this event likely sparked the bizarre culture of mass murder by firearms.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...university-texas-clock-tower-shooting-n620556

Today, we now have another type of mass murder usually associated with terrorists.
Bombing.
Will this method become more popular as legal firearm ownership becomes restricted?
I suspect so.

The cause in both instanced is mental instability.
Whitman had brain cancer.
Conditt a self diagnosed psychopath.

In neither case would limiting legal access to firearms have negated their desire to kill.

This is the problem. There are people that want to kill. And there are many ways to do so.


----------



## Wino

I've posted before (may be even in this thread) that eventually gun laws will become very restricted (in USA) and it will make no difference which party is in control of the country. Changes will come when the vast majority of people tire of the carnage. Many gun owners (I am one) have this inflated idea of their clout, the clout of the NRA and other right wing organizations that they are more important than all non owners and can control the destiny of gun control. There is an estimated 75+ million gun owners out of 325 mil. Of the 75 only about 20% are rabid fanatics - the rest don't give a flying fig. Change will come, but it will come, no matter how one interprets the 2nd amendment.


----------



## Johnny b

Wino said:


> I've posted before (may be even in this thread) that eventually gun laws will become very restricted (in USA) and it will make no difference which party is in control of the country. Changes will come when the vast majority of people tire of the carnage. Many gun owners (I am one) have this inflated idea of their clout, the clout of the NRA and other right wing organizations that they are more important than all non owners and can control the destiny of gun control. There is an estimated 75+ million gun owners out of 325 mil. Of the 75 only about 20% are rabid fanatics - the rest don't give a flying fig. Change will come, but it will come, no matter how one interprets the 2nd amendment.


I think there will be some radical changes in gun rights, and it will have an effect, but it still doesn't address the underlying problem.
And that is a nation that's lost it's moral center and has a lot of unstable people with evil intent.

BTW, not to discredit your logic, that would be 75 million out of a population of 18 year olds and above or ~254 million.

What's a few less whiners?


----------



## Wino

Johnny-be-Good said:


> I think there will be some radical changes in gun rights, and it will have an effect, but it still doesn't address the underlying problem.
> And that is a nation that's lost it's moral center and has a lot of unstable people with evil intent.
> 
> BTW, not to discredit your logic, that would be 75 million out of a population of 18 year olds and above or ~254 million.
> 
> What's a few less whiners?


Oh, no logic in the numbers, I pulled them outta my butt and expect both are inaccurate in regards to 18 yo and above. I suspect people that own guns that really are concerned is nearer to 30 mil and actual owners that have ever shot their guns may get to 50 mil. All I really know is that most rabid gun owners are rude loud mouth louts and have an largely inflated idea of their worth to society be it economics or politics. They are also on the wrong side of history.


----------



## 2twenty2

http://business.financialpost.com/n...cy-update1-bloom-598-words-f-03-25-18-1104-pm



> 200-year-old gunmaker Remington seeks bankruptcy protection as pressure on industry grows.
> 
> Ironically, the election of a true friend to the White House wound up stifling sales


----------



## Johnny b

2twenty2 said:


> http://business.financialpost.com/n...cy-update1-bloom-598-words-f-03-25-18-1104-pm


An upside could be future discounts if inventories are too big.

I'd like to find a good deal on a Ruger Mark lV target pistol.
Currently have a Mark ll with a 10" bull barrel and like it.


----------



## Wino

DJT is no true friend to anyone or anything save DJT.

I bought a R51 Gen 2 last year after avoiding, barely, getting a Gen 1 when they came out. So far pleased with performance, but it is a bear to tear down and reassemble. LOL Not recommended if you have arthritis (as I have).


----------



## Johnny b

For CC, I bought a Ruger LCP ll about a year ago.
Light and compact. Came with a pocket holster.

But for handling comfort, I prefer my old Star Garcia, but it's a bit porky for CC.
Better for open carry, but I'm not into that.
Actually, it's rare for me to CC.

But for pistal target shooting, my Mark ll is my all time favorite.
Inexpensive ammo and hardly any lift.


----------



## Johnny b

Back to gun issues.

While the student rallies are likely to have an impact on gun related violence, imo, they are missing out on why there is violence prevalent to begin with.

I do think the 'Red Flag' law makes sense as I've read of the concept and States are starting to write such legislation.
I think it will make a difference, but not as great as Leftwing Liberals and the student crowds profess. They screech and wail like a bunch of mindless monkeys, never addressing the underlying causes/reasons for the violence we read of or experience

This article popped up at USAToday.

* 64% of assailants in mass attacks suffered from symptoms of mental illness, Secret Service report finds *

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-stalks-many-suspects-mass-attacks/466251002/

And it should be pointed out that firearms haven't been the only weapons used in mass killings.
For example, Columbine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre



> In addition to the shootings, the complex and highly planned attack involved a fire bomb to divert firefighters, propane tanks converted to bombs placed in the cafeteria, 99 explosive devices, and car bombs.


That was 19 years ago. And the mentally ill still have legal access the the Internet where they can learn about making and using bombs.

1. Obviously, if a mentally unstable person wants to commit murder, he/she has options in regards to choice of weapons.

2. A friend claimed 'Red Flag' laws would require 'thought police'.

IMO, what is wrong with denying the mentally ill the ability to acquire firearms and from a social pov, what is wrong with putting the criminal mentally ill in mental institutions thus permitting a safer society?

Bombing stats for 2015 in the US:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...pdf/download&usg=AOvVaw1ZO3UzrPsNdDwVkMQPYMBs


----------



## zx10guy

Johnny, you're spot on. There is no discussion about the state of mental health services here in the States because it's not as glamorous as being anti gun and much harder. The difference between how mental illness is viewed/treated here versus in say many European countries is night and day. There is such a stigma about mental illness that many won't seek help. And even if one does, the wait for services is months that's if you can find a provider willing to accept new patients. Then there's the cost and insurance aspect. If you even have insurance coverage, chances are the provider you've selected won't accept it.


----------



## Drabdr

zx10guy said:


> Johnny, you're spot on. There is no discussion about the state of mental health services here in the States because it's not as glamorous as being anti gun and much harder. The difference between how mental illness is viewed/treated here versus in say many European countries is night and day. There is such a stigma about mental illness that many won't seek help. And even if one does, the wait for services is months that's if you can find a provider willing to accept new patients. Then there's the cost and insurance aspect. If you even have insurance coverage, chances are the provider you've selected won't accept it.


Thank you. Finally some sanity on this subject.

We're worrying about guns, while we're losing 20 vets a day. And Mental Illness...
Americans should be ashamed with how appalling our approach to it is. The # of publicly funded hospitals is deplorable.

We can do better.


----------



## zx10guy

Drabdr said:


> Thank you. Finally some sanity on this subject.
> 
> We're worrying about guns, while we're losing 20 vets a day. And Mental Illness...
> Americans should be ashamed with how appalling our approach to it is. The # of publicly funded hospitals is deplorable.
> 
> We can do better.


You're welcome. And definitely, we can do better.

With your reference to our vets, exactly. Again the problem is the public stigma towards someone needing mental health services/treatment. This has carried over to a reluctance by our vets. In addition, many vets have work centered around classified material which requires a security clearance. Many vets fear losing their clearances seeking out mental health services. There was a push a few years ago to make it clear to vets that seeking mental health help won't by itself disqualify you from suitability. But getting someone to believe this is another matter and whether the no harm no foul guidance towards a history of mental health is practiced in real life.

I have provided IT help for a non profit who's goal is to assist vets with PTSD and other mental health issues to prevent the 22 vets that commit suicide every day. The non profit is called K9s for Warriors. They match up trained service dogs with vets and through company and supporter donations provide the dog, the one month of training/bonding at their facility in Ponte Vedre, FL, vet services and dog food for a year. When I was down there helping with their wireless network, I witnessed a vet suffer a breakdown in front of me. It was not pretty to see.

In addition to our vets, many people forget the other segment of our population affected by mental illness....the homeless. Where are the marches and telethons for these people?


----------



## storage_man

There in lies the biggest problem. The VA is poor excuse for a health administration system. Typical government run health care. People that need it don't get the care, and people who really need it, give up because it doesn't work. It would be better to have all the vets on Medicare, at least there one has a choice of providers as long as your on Part A and B !


----------



## Johnny b

storage_man said:


> There in lies the biggest problem. The VA is poor excuse for a health administration system. Typical government run health care. People that need it don't get the care, and people who really need it, give up because it doesn't work. It would be better to have all the vets on Medicare, at least there one has a choice of providers as long as your on Part A and B !


Agreed.


----------



## valis

August 3rd. 

248 mass shootings this year to date.

I am ashamed.


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> .............
> 
> ................
> 
> I am ashamed.


I saw the WalMart incident earlier in the news.

I'm deeply concerned copycat incidents will increase.

There is a lot to be ashamed about in our society lately.
The value of human life is deteriorating.


----------



## valis

248. In 215 days.

We should ALL be ashamed.


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> 248. In 215 days.
> 
> We should ALL be ashamed.


Agreed.


----------



## valis

Anyone? Input on why the US is so violent? For a Western civilization, we sure are morons when it comes to violence.

I am very curious as to what you all think. A poll is not necessary as there would be too many options. I have my views; it is not video games and I will elaborate later.


----------



## Johnny b

An endless list.

As a generality, we've become a dying society, 'we' feel oppressed, 'we' want to live beyond our means and it's someone else's fault 'we' don't/can't.

Frustration. Toss in alcohol and drugs, religion and politics, unachievable expectations and evil walks on two legs.

This is an age of false promises and non affordable entitlements.

What's yours is mine and what's mine's me own. Bit of a conflict.


----------



## valis

Sadly, I agree


----------



## ekim68

There's been a dumbing down in our Country for the last 40 or so years and that can't help. You have the NRA that owns a large number of people in Congress and lobbied for Assault Gun sales. And have you gone to a Movie lately? Nothing sells like violence.....


----------



## valis

Agreeance Mike and thank you for the response.


----------



## Johnny b

ekim68 said:


> There's been a dumbing down in our Country for the last 40 or so years and that can't help. You have the NRA that owns a large number of people in Congress and lobbied for Assault Gun sales. And have you gone to a Movie lately? Nothing sells like violence.....


Agreed.



> Nothing sells like violence.....


Sex does. And there often seems a lot of violence involved.

It still goes back to a society that's trading off morality and ethics for emotional gratification.
In a way, pornographic.
Assault weapons don't create violence. But the attempt at twisted self gratification can.
The NRA provides the means.


----------



## Johnny b

And now I see in the morning news, Dayton Ohio has had a mass killing.

* Dayton shooting: At least 9 dead, 16 injured; suspected gunman killed, police say *
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-oregon-district-el-paso-shooting/1914440001/

https://www.daytondailynews.com/new...oting-oregon-district/dHOvgFCs726CylnDLdZQxM/


----------



## valis

Lovely. What the heck is wrong with us...


----------



## Johnny b

Another question: why are some people affected so negatively, and yet others face adversity and overcome it with successful lives?

These mass murderers don't seem to be struggling for survival.
Hate and empowerment seem closely connected with these killers.


----------



## Wino

valis said:


> Lovely. What the heck is wrong with us...


Donald J. Trump and his enablers. That simple. He didn't create the crazies, but he has turned over the stone under which they were hiding like cockroaches and feel it's now ok to come to the fore. The next 15 months are going to be ugly and years beyond. If Trump is not repudiated at 2020 polls, this nation is lost. Repairs to this nations id will take decades. What havoc have we brought on ourselves??


----------



## Johnny b

I think it's been building for a number of decades. 
Now appears to be the worst of times and I suspect it will get a lot worse with the present political climate. And I think it should be pointed out that intolerance in religious fundamentalism is also playing a part.

Politics today is hate driven and it encompasses both political parties.


----------



## valis

We should not HAVE to define a mass shooting. We should condemn ALL shootings period. The only time I could kill a human, IMO, is in defense of my family. I am 51 and have never been pissed enough at anyone to even consider pulling a gun. I habe been in more than a few fistfights as a young man, and murder never even crossed my mind.

I saw a fight a few weeks back where some dude kicked at a dog (total jerk move, agreed, and I said that was not cool) and some other guy (NOT the dogs owner) freaking pulled a gun out of his car.

I dont get it. I just dont understand it. It is beyond my comprehension. I suspect social media plays some part, and a need for acceptance....but murder? My son, who is only 14, has no clue either, nor do his friends. So I just dunno. Parenting?


----------



## Wino

We saw a rise in right wing hate groups under Clinton and Obama. They were semi-quite under Reagan, Bush I & II. Trump has emboldened them to being overt haters as they no longer have to hide their ugliness - they have a POTUS in their pocket who needs them to survive.


----------



## valis

It isnt politics, although that certainly doesnt help, peddling hate.

I have asked this here several times as I cannot figure it out. Why are Americans so quick to kill? I just dont get it....


----------



## valis

Man....just heard that the sister of the shooter in Dayton was killed in the attack...those poor parents....


----------



## Johnny b

It's rather obvious there are politicians that trade the public safety for a hot button to elect-ability.
This is local in my area of Ohio.

https://www.daytondailynews.com/new...s-state-lawmaker-says/jf8XNJPSfKFl13yggzTFgM/


> State Rep. Candice Keller, R-Middletown, said in a post to her Facebook page that blame for the Dayton shootings should be placed on the breakdown of the traditional family, gay marriage, violent video games, professional athletes who protest the American flag, recreational marijuana and "snowflakes, who can't accept a duly-elected President."


https://www.dispatch.com/opinion/20180427/editorial-kasich-order-to-tighten-gun-checks-is-needed



> Kasich appropriately seeks an update on the 2015 efforts to improve reporting and goes a couple of steps further. The governor ordered Ohio public offices that handle data needed for the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System to provide their reporting history for the past four years within 30 days and directs the criminal-justice services office to post online "a list of any public official or office that fails to submit a complete response to OCJS within the required time frame."
> 
> Kasich's order also asks the state auditor to include compliance with reporting to the federal database in its reviews of public offices subject to reporting requirements.
> 
> Not surprisingly, the governor's executive order was greeted with some political backlash, at least in Butler County. Republican State Rep. Candice Keller of Middletown and Butler County Sheriff Richard Jones both objected.
> 
> *Shamefully, Keller went so far as to declare county sheriffs throughout Ohio should "completely ignore" the governor's attempt to identify any continuing weaknesses in the background check system.*


Her name appears here also, in support of concealed carry with out a license:
https://www.dispatch.com/news/20190...uns-without-permit-training-background-checks


> Almost half of Ohio House Republicans are pushing for passage of a bill that would allow all law-abiding Ohioans to carry a concealed weapon without obtaining a permit - a measure that GOP Gov. Mike DeWine supports.


(note: open carry with out a license/permit is legal in Ohio )

The reality is, Keller is only ensuring an easy path for mass murderers to acquire firearms.


----------



## Wino

> State Rep. Candice Keller, R-Middletown, said in a post to her Facebook page that blame for the Dayton shootings should be placed on the breakdown of the traditional family, gay marriage, violent video games, professional athletes who protest the American flag, recreational marijuana and "snowflakes, who can't accept a duly-elected President."


Your right wing politicians sound as ignorant as ours in Texas.

As a gun owner I'm disappointed in our politicians and most of rabid gun owners that seem to believe their crap doesn't stink. The latter seem to think their contribution to the nation is beyond all others. One day, their stupidity will bite there butt. I laugh when they boycott Nike or other organizations that take steps to halt the sales of guns and ammo - they believe without their support these organizations will die. The diehard gunners are ants climbing an elephants leg with rape on their mind - in short, insignificant.


----------



## Johnny b

Wino said:


> Your right wing politicians sound as ignorant as ours in Texas.
> 
> ..............................


Maybe even worse.
I couldn't find the article, it was in a small local newspaper, but I remember her arguing for convicted felons to have the legal right to possess and carry firearms.


----------



## Drabdr

Until this country takes mental illness treatment more seriously than we do, we are going to be applying Bandaids to wounds that will never heal. My humble opinion, of course.


----------



## Wino

In USA case, mental illness treatment should start with current POTUS - nothing humble about my opinion.


----------



## valis

Drabdr said:


> Until this country takes mental illness treatment more seriously than we do, we are going to be applying Bandaids to wounds that will never heal. My humble opinion, of course.


FAR too many people overlook this. It takes something broken upstairs foe this to keep occurring.


----------



## Wino

valis said:


> FAR too many people overlook this. It takes something broken upstairs foe this to keep occurring.


Something broken upstairs and catalyst to set it off.


----------



## ekim68

As an aside..


After Sandy Hook, we said never again.


----------



## Johnny b

Some sanity in Ohio:

* Ohio GOP leader calls on Republican state Rep. Candice Keller to resign after Dayton shooting comments *

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-resign-over-dayton-shooting-post/1930213001/

BTW, that's a really old photo of her in that article.

Today:


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> Lovely. What the heck is wrong with us...


Interesting read on a basic problem here:

* Mass shootings and misogyny: The violent ideology we can't ignore *

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...o-texas-shooter-gilroy-california/1924532001/



> "While not all misogynists are racists, and not every white supremacist is a misogynist, a deep-seated loathing of women acts as a connective tissue between many white supremacists, especially those in the alt-right, and their lesser-known brothers in hate like incels (involuntary celibates), MRAs (Men's Rights Activists) and PUAs (Pick Up Artists)," read a report from the Anti-Defamation League.


----------



## RT

Guns are fun for recreation, target shooting is even an Olympic sport, but if you don't how to handle such a weapon you put yourself and others in danger.
There are still perfectly sane folks that hunt to get food on table for their family and don't waste a shot.
Others that venture into the the wilderness that have guns for defense

And the same goes for kitchen knives and tire irons, sharp sticks thats all fun and games til some one gets their eye poked....

I simply do not understand why one human would harm another unless the other was endangering you or your loved ones and reacting in self defense.

People go to horror movies to be scared, ride roller coasters for the the stomach churning thrill, play video games that involve shooting virtual characters in the head...movies with big explosions and disasters, box office hits, things we never wish to ever happen in our reality, but real life can be much more horrible than you pay for violent entertainment... and so on and so forth...our lives are sometimes lived outside of our selves. 

Ah, sorry for the rant, and i do have some unexpoloded fireworks to give to my perfectly sane nephew...but since I took the time to type, might as well post


----------



## Johnny b

Good post.

It's not a perfect world, but sanity should be a common goal for those on both sides of the argument.
How to achieve that is the problem.

Shooting of policemen seem on the uptick.
Saw this late last night:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ting-injured-standoff-cops-gunman/2013448001/

It's easy to paint one individual as insane, but I think it's more than just singular elements at play when it becomes an epidemic.

'What to do' as a society descends into darkness is the question and there may not be a solution/solutions we all can agree to.


----------



## storage_man

And in a city that has some of the most strict Gun Laws, Gee He had a BUNCH of guns, and used them. I guess those criminals that are not supposed to own firearms, don't care. What do you think ? 

The call is to disarm everybody else, not the criminal ?????? Really a stupid move !


----------



## Cookiegal

Storage_man,

I've edited your post for language. Even if starred out by the board filters, it's still not acceptable so please keep that in mind in the future.


----------



## Johnny b

storage_man said:


> And in a city that has some of the most strict Gun Laws, Gee He had a BUNCH of guns, and used them. I guess those criminals that are not supposed to own firearms, don't care. What do you think ?
> 
> The call is to disarm everybody else, not the criminal ?????? Really a stupid move !


I think you have nothing to contribute other than the old rhetoric of the Russian infested NRA.

Trump made one comment that stands out as a reality.
Guns don't pull the trigger.
So the reality is, how can the criminal, the mentally disturbed, the radical, be identified and restricted from possessing fire arms and even weapons in general, with out infringing on the rights of the honest citizen to bear arms for self protection?

Tough question, but it doesn't address why their acts of violence are on the uptick.

Trump has and is again campaigning on a fascist, race hate theme that only brings about more violent confrontation. It's in the news every day.

Racists love the guy, QAnon love the guy, white supremacists love the guy, neo Nazis love the guy and a large element of the fundamentalist community worship him as a divine emissary of God while he orders the abuse and torture of Hispanic families seeking sanctuary.

It's not an issue of taking guns away from honest citizens, it's an issue of a large portion of US citizens no longer interested in a democratic society and will 'kiss the devil's ring finger' in their bizarre quest for righteousness.
A rot within our society.
And with it, the fringe becomes more outwardly problematic.

Solutions start with attempting to cure the moral and ethical dysfunction in our society and imo, Democrat liberals have little to offer other than freebies if elected with socialist promises and draconian social measures. But then, what has Trump to offer other than Nationalism ( ie. National Socialism ).

I'd say more nasties about Liberals, but they don't seem to be in power at the moment.

Most bizarre is the logic of supporting fascism as a response to socialism.


----------



## valis

storage_man said:


> And in a city that has some of the most strict Gun Laws, Gee He had a BUNCH of guns, and used them. I guess those criminals that are not supposed to own firearms, don't care. What do you think ?
> 
> The call is to disarm everybody else, not the criminal ?????? Really a stupid move !


https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527


----------



## valis

And mind you, I own guns. Something is very wrong with our society and ignoring it will not make it go away.


----------



## steppenwolf

shootings in gun free zones ,so whats that say?98%


----------



## valis

Do what, now?


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> Do what, now?


Say sophistry and bogus facts.

A good article on how Trump claims 98% of mass shooting happen in gun free zones:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tings-happen-in-gun-free-zones/?noredirect=on

Trump is presenting the usual NRA narrative, nothing can be done about it, live with it, go out and buy a gun for protection.


----------



## Johnny b

No surprises here:

* Two Weeks After Mass Shootings, Trump Loses Interest in Gun Control: 'He's Started to Move On' *

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump...-background-checks-like-weve-never-had-before

.....................

* Donald Trump's gun control reversal should surprise exactly no one *

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/19/politics/gun-control-background-checks/index.html

............................

*Trump should stop using mental illness as an excuse to do nothing on guns *
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ing-mental-illness-an-excuse-do-nothing-guns/


----------



## Wino

*"Trump should stop using mental illness as an excuse to do nothing on guns "*

Mental illness?? His, others or both??? Zeus, this man is an open book on stupidity.


----------



## Johnny b

Truly, if mental illness was the only measuring stick, most of Trump's supporters would obviously be exempt from gun ownership 

Fascism is a mental disorder.


----------



## storage_man

I pretty much assumed all of you would Blame Trump. But the problem really manifests itself with the "FAMILY UNIT". You can all figure this out. Years ago Divorce was an exception, today not so much. What does Divorce do, it leaves children with no Fathers/Mothers. Its difficult to raise a child and to expect a single parent to accomplish it, is a bad assumption. Marriage has consequences, far beyond the escape of Divorce. I believe that yesterdays parents (Last generation), never were taught what implications of procreating really means ? You may disagree with me, but there lies the blame. We have a country filled with kids & adults that have never had a real family. If you look closely at every one of these mass shooters, you will find there were parents that didn't address correctly or were ignored their problems. 

Until this gets fixed, its not the President of the USA problem, its really society's problem. How it gets fixed, I really don't know. I'm not educated enough to develop a solution !


----------



## Johnny b

storage_man said:


> I pretty much assumed all of you would Blame Trump. But the problem really manifests itself with the "FAMILY UNIT". You can all figure this out. Years ago Divorce was an exception, today not so much. What does Divorce do, it leaves children with no Fathers/Mothers. Its difficult to raise a child and to expect a single parent to accomplish it, is a bad assumption. Marriage has consequences, far beyond the escape of Divorce. I believe that yesterdays parents (Last generation), never were taught what implications of procreating really means ? You may disagree with me, but there lies the blame. We have a country filled with kids & adults that have never had a real family. If you look closely at every one of these mass shooters, you will find there were parents that didn't address correctly or were ignored their problems.
> 
> Until this gets fixed, its not the President of the USA problem, its really society's problem. How it gets fixed, I really don't know. I'm not educated enough to develop a solution !


That is certainly an element, but by a wide margin, the moral and ethical beliefs in the US have sunk to new lows.
Trump didn't create a lack of morality and ethics.
But his racist and nationalist (fascist) spiels attract those types as followers and supporters that further enhance those negatives.
So, major blame goes to the elements of our society that willingly partake in Trump's lead.
Trump pleases their evil desires and as President, is able to act accordingly.


----------



## Johnny b

Some interesting statistics at Slate. ( article from 2013 )

* Rethinking Gun Control *
https://slate.com/technology/2013/0...s-from-a-research-report-on-gun-violence.html

What stands out:



> We have 300 million firearms, but only 100 million are handguns. According to the report, "In 2007, one estimate placed the total number of firearms in the country at 294 million: '106 million handguns, 105 million rifles, and 83 million shotguns.' "
> 
> Handguns are the problem. Despite being outnumbered by long guns, "Handguns are used in more than 87 percent of violent crimes," the report notes. In 2011, "handguns comprised 72.5 percent of the firearms used in murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents." Why do criminals prefer handguns? One reason, according to surveys of felons, is that they're "easily concealable."
> 
> Mass shootings aren't the problem. "The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths," says the report. "Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons." Compare that with the 335,000 gun deaths between 2000 and 2010 alone.
> 
> Gun suicide is a bigger killer than gun homicide.
> 
> Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,"
> 
> Carrying guns for self-defense is an arms race. The prevalence of firearm violence near "drug markets … could be a consequence of drug dealers carrying guns for self-defense against thieves or other adversaries who are likely to be armed," says the report. In these communities, "individuals not involved in the drug markets have similar incentives for possessing guns." According to a Pew Foundation report, "the vast majority of gun owners say that having a gun makes them feel safer. And far more today than in 1999 cite protection-rather than hunting or other activities-as the major reason for why they own guns."
> 
> Denying guns to people under restraining orders saves lives.
> 
> It isn't true that most gun acquisitions by criminals can be blamed on a few bad dealers. The report concedes that in 1998, "1,020 of 83,272 federally licensed retailers (1.2 percent) accounted for 57.4 percent of all guns traced by the ATF." However, "Gun sales are also relatively concentrated; approximately 15 percent of retailers request 80 percent of background checks on gun buyers conducted by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System." Researchers have found that "the share of crime gun traces attributed to these few dealers only slightly exceeded their share of handgun sales, which are almost equally concentrated among a few dealers." Volume, not laxity, drives the number of ill-fated sales.


Obviously, the solution for a safe society is more, much more involved than just denying firearms to all.
And likely never to be 100% perfect.


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny,
We can continue over here if that will make you happy.
After reading through this forum, it seems clear that you are a passionate gun rights advocate, in much the same way that chawbacon passionately opposes abortion.



Johnny b said:


> Your argument is based on fallacies


You would have to point out which of my arguments are based on fallacies and show some evidence as to why they are fallacies



> and a constant quest to impose socialism.


Back to my original premise.. you are a troll.
By calling me a socialist in a pejorative manner, you are not advancing your argument.
And I know you understand that socialism refers to government control over the means of production, so how does that relate to a debate on gun control?



> You have no idea what the framers of the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution had in mind. You don't understand US history nor how our Nation came in to being.


Unless you can cite a specific example of where I am incorrect in the above matters, I suggest you don't accuse me of ignorance.
We discussed earlier about how scholars disagree on the nuances on how the 2nd amendment is to be interpreted, so I fail to see how you can have an absolute view on what it means yourself.



> You compare cultures as equals that are unalike.


I was not comparing cultures Per Se, I was offering a model of other counties that handle gun control in a "better" manner than the US does, so that the US can make improvements in its own laws. I did not suggest that the US adopt the laws of the other countries., rather it should look to other places for ideas.



> They would be thinking of self defence and the neighbour issue still exists.
> You twist facts. For instance, your link
> https://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/why-own-a-gun-protection-is-now-top-reason/
> It supports a perceived need for home protection, that the 2nd Amendment allows.
> People don't buy firearms because of the 2nd Amendment, they buy them because the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to defend their homes and family.
> And American Indians have little to nothing to do with crime and home invasions through out the US.
> Your argument is BS and you even seem to be trying to use the race card to promote it.


That is twice I have been accused of playing the race card, not my intent. While I was forming the idea that the framers were not likely thinking that 18th century Americans were worried that their fellow citizens were likely to rob or murder them, it did occur to me that there were a lot of unhappy Indians around that might need to be defended against.



> Again a fallacy.
> You are using the second sentence as an absolute to prove the first.
> As mentioned, protection of the home is also a matter of protecting one's home and family from criminal intent.
> Same concept applies with open and concealed carry. It's to protect the citizen from other citizens with criminal intent.
> And to your 'If Game':
> As to governments gone rogue, of course they have all the heavy weapons and the general public is excluded from ownership. But that scenario is already a case of a failed society. Even then, the concept of guerilla warfare becomes a reality.
> It's basically how the United States of America came into being.


Back on Sep 12, you wrote:


> The term refers to well regulated in a historical context when the United States became a free and independent entity from the British.
> There was concern that the many militias and private armies of the Revolution might be used for personal/political gain. Thus the need to make sure they were loyal to the new democracy.


I don't see in your interpretation where the point was for personal protection against crime. It seems to me they were mostly worried about having the British invade again, or about having to overthrow a rouge government.



> Again with the fallacies.
> The second only applies to people with severe health and mental issues. Not the general public.


I am pretty sure that the statistics support me on this one.
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death



> It can also be upheld with additional rulings to improve safety rather than your constant argument, marching to a restrictive socialist society.


Or it can be re-interpreted. My point is that there is a need for some kind of legislative change. I am not sure that you agree.



> You hide your socialist arguments in a Clinton-Trump thread, apparently not even knowing Clinton made no attempt or argument to repeal the Second Amendment.
> https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention/
> And you avoid the thread I started concerning firearms in the US.


Well, I moved it. Happy now?

It appears from your opening post that you believe that the "problem" (firearm related death) is that "society that's lost it's moral center?"
If that is the case, then the topic is not actually gun control, rather it is a societal problem.

I would posit that it is both. With fewer guns, there is less opportunity for gun violence, Also, there is some societal decay that should be dealt with.
One might argue that the two ideas are related: It is hard to form societal relationships when you fear your neighbours might be packing.
We see the problem in the news all the time when police respond with disproportionate force to situations that would otherwise be routine and peaceful, for fear that there is a firearm about.

Back in post #35 https://forums.techguy.org/threads/guns.1186438/page-3#post-9482404
You looked like you were almost ready to offer an idea for a solution, but alas, it never came.

So, you continue to reinforce my initial hypothesis: "You are not helping"
You seem to look at issues through the lens of your own self interest, without having empathy for others.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Johnny b

Sean, your formatting was so bad, I couldn't quote your post as a whole with out errors I couldn't correct.
So here is my response to your post #118



> Johnny,
> We can continue over here if that will make you happy.
> After reading through this forum, it seems clear that you are a passionate gun rights advocate, in much the same way that chawbacon passionately opposes abortion.


Happy? 

Actually, I'm very opposed to abortion for the general purpose of birth control, but that's a topic for another thread. But it demonstrates how little a large segment of our society values life. And If you think I support the 'right to lifers', you've made another big mistake.




> You would have to point out which of my arguments are based on fallacies and show some evidence as to why they are fallacies


Indeed.
Go back and read my comments.
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/...r-hillary-clinton.1233176/page-3#post-9644580
Either it's your issues with reading comprehension again, or your problem with denial.



> Back to my original premise.. you are a troll.


Back to name calling, I see. Nothing has changed. The same comment from your very first post to me.
Apparently, I frustrate you.



> By calling me a socialist in a pejorative manner, you are not advancing your argument.


In your humble opinion?
Really? 
Sean, your presence in this forum has been collectively an argument for a socialist society. You come from a different culture and expect us in the US to conform to your political ideologies.
That's not 'name calling', it's a description of your political and social position.
But calling me a 'troll' is name calling.
You just don't like having your position critiqued 
So you try to lure me into doing likewise.
Sean, that's one of the oldest tricks in debate. And it shows your intellectual weakness.



> Unless you can cite a specific example of where I am incorrect in the above matters, I suggest you don't accuse me of ignorance.


You can suggest anything you want.
I have demonstrated in the past you compare nations of different cultural backgrounds as if they are equals.
As far as the 2nd Amendment, you keep arguing as if it's just a law.
It's one of the first 10 amendments derived from the US Bill of Rights.
You make ignorant comments with out realizing the importance.
Let me help.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights/what-does-it-say


> The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. It spells out Americans' rights in relation to their government. It guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual


That was a promise, not just a law.
And you spout off I'm a troll because you are ignorant of our history and how our nation was originally formed.



> We discussed earlier about how scholars disagree on the nuances on how the 2nd amendment is to be interpreted, so I fail to see how you can have an absolute view on what it means yourself.


Your ignorance is not a logical argument against my intelligence 



> I was not comparing cultures Per Se, I was offering a model of other counties that handle gun control in a "better" manner than the US does, so that the US can make improvements in its own laws.


And you chose Switzerland as an example, where all members of their military take home their military firearm after their duty has been served.
Where there is a history of mercenary activity, where like Trump, they have little to no allegiances to to common causes in the past like WW2 as I presented to you in another thread.
The US needs laws that address our society, not like the Swiss nor Canada.



> I did not suggest that the US adopt the laws of the other countries., rather it should look to other places for ideas.


Weasel words 



> That is twice I have been accused of playing the race card, not my intent.


If it's not your intent, I suggest you either choose your words more carefully, or stop with it.

Your formatting is a mess.



> I don't see in your interpretation where the point was for personal protection against crime.


Again, all you offer is sophistry.
The part of the 2nd amendment that addresses the civilian possession of a firearm:


> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Right there, Sean. If not for protection, what? It's self evident.
A 'well regulated militia' addresses not the right to own and bear arms, it addresses the loyalty of the militia in question.



> It seems to me


It seems to me you know little about the history of the US.



> I am pretty sure that the statistics support me on this one.
> https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death


First paragraph:


> Guns can kill you in three ways: homicide, suicide, and by accident. Owning a gun or having one readily accessible makes all three more likely. One meta-analysis "found strong evidence for increased odds of suicide among persons with access to firearms compared with those without access and moderate evidence for an attenuated increased odds of homicide victimization when persons with and without access to firearms were compared." The latter finding is stronger for women, a reminder that guns are also a risk factor for domestic violence.


In case you either forgot or intentionally forgot, Nothing in this thread contradicts that statement.
Comments have addressed the above as needing attention.
So, what is your point?
In what way are you right, and previous comments wrong?
The article does have value, and much of it already discussed.

This stood out at one of the Vov links:
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000500/gun-homicide-place


> It's important to note, however, that all these studies show an association, rather than causation.


And it's rather obvious that the 'association' element strongly suggests there are too many people that should not posses a firearm, which has been mentioned many times in this thread. An not just by me.



> Well, I moved it. Happy now?


Moved what? 

From your Hilary / Trump thread, all I saw was your attempt to argue that our society shouldn't be allowed to defend itself with a firearm.
Which wasn't a Clinton argument at all.
Trump imaged her otherwise, but her position was much like what's been expressed in this thread.
Your position seems to be.....do away with the Second Amendment.

https://forums.techguy.org/threads/...r-hillary-clinton.1233176/page-3#post-9644355


> The second amendment is a law, something created by human beings. It can be repealed if there is the political will.





> Back in post #35 https://forums.techguy.org/threads/guns.1186438/page-3#post-9482404
> You looked like you were almost ready to offer an idea for a solution, but alas, it never came.


That's because of your issue with reading comprehension.
It's been there all along.



> So, you continue to reinforce my initial hypothesis: "You are not helping"
> You seem to look at issues through the lens of your own self interest, without having empathy for others.



Sean, I realize nothing has changed with you. You are only on a quest to impose socialism on your neighbors to the south.


----------



## Johnny b

Sean, why the unnecessary extra 'quote' that messes up replies quoting your post?


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny,
It seems that we are spinning our wheels here.
You see no need to reduce the number of guns in america,
You offer no suggestions as to how to improve morality in America.
All you can do is criticize others. 
When I say you are a Troll, I mean that you are exhibiting internet troll like behaviour: 


> In Internet slang, a *troll* is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.


As I said at the start, You are not helping. That means that you are not offering any solutions. Talk about being intellectually weak. It is super easy to identify a problem, while it is difficult to come up with solutions. 
And every time you accuse me of being a socialist, or not understanding history, or sophistry or using weasel words, it comes off as desperate. and weak.


----------



## RT

Are you guys squaring off for an old fashioned duel?

Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

because they are both dangerous.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> Johnny,
> It seems that we are spinning our wheels here.
> You see no need to reduce the number of guns in america,
> You offer no suggestions as to how to improve morality in America.
> All you can do is criticize others.
> When I say you are a Troll, I mean that you are exhibiting internet troll like behaviour:
> 
> As I said at the start, You are not helping. That means that you are not offering any solutions. Talk about being intellectually weak. It is super easy to identify a problem, while it is difficult to come up with solutions.
> And every time you accuse me of being a socialist, or not understanding history, or sophistry or using weasel words, it comes off as desperate. and weak.





> All you can do is criticize others.


You make it easy 

All you do is bitterly reply, I'm not fair because I show up the fallacies of your logic (?).



> As I said at the start, You are not helping.


I'm simply not an advocate of a socialist society in the US and that seems to irk you endlessly.



> That means that you are not offering any solutions.


You simply aren't comfortable in a discussion that doesn't parallel socialist motives, Sean.
Why do I have to agree with you?
I do give reason why I don't, but it does seem to upset you to the point of personal name calling.
I've found most Canadians are civil and polite. Rather a national trait, imo. But you, not so much in this debate forum.



> It is super easy to identify a problem, while it is difficult to come up with solutions.


It's not an easy problem to solve, Sean.
From my very first post :
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/guns.1186438/


> Is this a problem of too many guns.....or more a society that's lost it's moral center?
> 
> I think it's the latter.


You seem to think repealing a Constitutional Amendment , guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, is THE solution.
And you have been supporting radical socialism in other threads.
So how and why is it unfair to bring up your socialist proclivities when they are obviously an issue that determines your opinions on what the US should embrace?
Your opinions are not just irrelevant, they are also harmful.



> And every time you accuse me of being a socialist, or not understanding history, or sophistry or using weasel words, it comes off as desperate. and weak.


Whine, whine, whine.


----------



## Johnny b

RT said:


> Are you guys squaring off for an old fashioned duel?
> 
> Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
> 
> because they are both dangerous.


Reminds me of an episode of Justified where the bad guy thought he could knife Olyphant from something like 13 paces before Tim could pull his gun and shoot him.
So the fool sprints toward Olyphant.....and trips


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> It's not an easy problem to solve, Sean.
> From my very first post :
> https://forums.techguy.org/threads/guns.1186438/


We can agree that it is not an easy problem to solve.



> You seem to think repealing a Constitutional Amendment , guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, is THE solution.


No, I suggested that it could be *A* solution. 
The 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st amendment, demonstrating that it is possible to do. Or is there some finer point of constitutional law that I am missing here?

I also suggested interpreting the 2nd amendment differently, to make belonging to a well regulated militia a requirement to gun ownership. I would think that you could get behind such a requirement, but I don't actually know you that well.



> And you have been supporting radical socialism in other threads.


If you are going to call the idea of single payer heath-care radical socialism then perhaps I am guilty of that. But I don't know of any sane people who do.


> So how and why is it unfair to bring up your socialist proclivities when they are obviously an issue that determines your opinions on what the US should embrace?


Well, I never use the word "unfair" so I don't know why you would think that I do. I am suggesting that healthcare could be an institution that could be run in a manner that many other institutions in America are successfully run.



> Your opinions are not just irrelevant, they are also harmful.


Well that is a big leap. I cannot see why you would say that the heath-care systems used in ALL of the other first world nations are harmful.


----------



## RT

I'm not adding fuel to the fire,
nor quoting news articles and dubious statstics.

Just saying everyone is welcome to have a go at shooting my guns,
at paper targets or exploding ones.
And I will thank you for letting me try yours, for it's fun to try different guns without actually buying them.

Friends have bought a model I owned and I have done the same.
And firearm safety is something that should be basic, don't pull the trigger, don't point in any direction other than down range even if you "think" it's not loaded.
A friend will hand you an empty one, but always double check.

I've heard some similar safety warnings about people that don't pack their own parachutes.


----------



## Johnny b

Sean posted:



> We can agree that it is not an easy problem to solve.


And yet you have implied all it takes is political will to repeal the Second Amendment.
Or have you forgotten I can read and understand the written English language?

https://forums.techguy.org/threads/...r-hillary-clinton.1233176/page-3#post-9644355



> Now people who own guns in order to protect themselves are deluded.
> There is no way that an individual with a gun could defend themselves against the might of US law enforcement.
> And again, most gun deaths in America are by suicide. If you have a gun in your home, you are far more likely to be shot.
> 
> The second amendment is a law, something created by human beings. It can be repealed if there is the political will.


Fallacies (that I addressed) followed by your urging to break the US Constitution.



> No, I suggested that it could be *A* solution.


Well, if there are more, all you suggested was to look to dissimilar cultures and embrace their success.
And I've addressed that with out you ever posting a specific example. that would work
So, you gave A solution only. One. Break our Constitution along with our Bill of Rights that's incorporated.

All I see is your sophistry and weaseling, Sean.
Other than our Constitution, what specifically, have you presented as a solution, and I don't mean, 'looking around' for options.

You called me a troll. But all you've done is enter this thread looking for an argument, likely because I correctly informed you in your Hilary/Trump thread about Clinton's gun policies.
meh!



> I also suggested interpreting the 2nd amendment differently, to make belonging to a well regulated militia a requirement to gun ownership.


You did. And you are obviously incorrect. Because you don't acknowledge the history of the US. There is nothing in that simple statement that could be derived as the interpretation you made.
You claim it takes an intellectual to decipher it.
I disagree 
And I'm doubtful you're that intellectual 



> I would think that you could get behind such a requirement,


Looks like you thought wrong.......again 



> but I don't actually know you that well.


Indeed.
I doubt there is a solution that's an absolute.
From a practical pov, the best solution/s will favor the greatest number of people while infringing as little as possible on the minority position.

You continually argue to favor a minority at the expense of the majority.
A major flaw of socialism when taken to the extremes you have supported elsewhere in this forum, and now here.



> If you are going to call the idea of single payer heath-care radical socialism then perhaps I am guilty of that.


An excellent example of what I just addressed.



> But I don't know of any sane people who do.


Like I've inferred, your opinions here concerning the US and it's predicaments ...are irrelevant.
You are not a citizen of the US, you don't live in our society and you have little understanding of us, why we do the things we do, nor the best way to address these problems.
You shout out a call to socialism with out knowing us.



> Well, I never use the word "unfair" so I don't know why you would think that I do.


Seriously, you think word-play is an intellectual exercise?
I asked you a question.
This:


> So how and why is it unfair to bring up your socialist proclivities when they are obviously an issue that determines your opinions on what the US should embrace?


You can answer or ignore.
But a non-sequitur is BS.



> Well that is a big leap. I cannot see why you would say that the heath-care systems used in ALL of the other first world nations are harmful.


As with gun control, you aren't presenting solutions that necessarily work in the society I live in.
And you haven't presented any solution to gun violence other than elimination of the Second Amendment as written.
Not one single specific proposal, other than ^^^.

Sean, you're obviously good with computers and software. I applaud you for your unselfish efforts in the help threads.
But here, you think in a manner my sister complains about, binary thinking.
Choices of 'on and off'. Either one way or the other.
It doesn't work well with human problems.
And when it's imposed, it's likened to dictatorships and various autocracies because that's what it takes to convince and demand obedience.
Try critical thinking for a change.


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> Sean posted:
> And yet you have implied all it takes is political will to repeal the Second Amendment.
> Or have you forgotten I can read and understand the written English language?


I feel like I am beating my head against a wall with you Johnny. Maybe I should stop.
I didn't say it would be easy, it would probably be one of the most difficult things the US has ever done. When Australia changed its gun laws after the Port Arthur Massacre it was after a huge amount of resistance and debate. 
You have not refuted the idea that it is possible, you only chose to mock me by incorrectly suggest that I thought it would be easy.



> Fallacies (that I addressed) followed by your urging to break the US Constitution.


Well, there were 4 statements there that you called fallacies. I guess you are going to have to explain to me why they are fallacies again, because I seem to have lost your arguments. As far as "Breaking the Constitution" goes, is a constitutional amendment considered a part of the constitution? Does the country fall apart when you tinker with it? There are 33 amendments to the constitution. Did any of them "Break" the constitution when they were added?



> Well, if there are more, all you suggested was to look to dissimilar cultures and embrace their success.
> And I've addressed that with out you ever posting a specific example. that would work
> So, you gave A solution only. One. Break our Constitution along with our Bill of Rights that's incorporated.


I gave you two ideas. They are not fully formed solutions, only a starting point. Repeal and replace the 2nd amendment or Re-Interpret it in such a manner that not everybody is permitted to bear arms. Yes, it would be hard. I thought that the dissolution of the Berlin wall would not happen in my lifetime, but it happened anyway. It takes vision and will. I don't think the US population has that will frankly.



> All I see is your sophistry and weaseling, Sean.


Likewise



> Other than our Constitution, what specifically, have you presented as a solution, and I don't mean, 'looking around' for options.


My mother was a social worker, and my father and sister were both schoolteachers, so you can imagine that I have some bias towards early childhood education being a key part of building a better society in the long run.
Micheal Moore, in his movie, Bowling for Columbine, talks about how American culture is ... how to put this... excessively violent. In a population of 300 million people however, there is a broad diversity of culture. I am not even sure how you can make the point that culturally, America can't change.

So the broad idea here is working towards consensus, community, lessening fear of the other, cooperating, building.

Prisons are not productive. guards don't produce anything, they just stand around watching prisoners. Do ya'll still have prisoner labour - or was that outlawed? In any case, having a large prisoner population is counter productive to the productivity of the nation. And why is there virtually no rehabilitation programs in your (or Canadian) prisons anyway?

I could go on.



> You called me a troll. But all you've done is enter this thread looking for an argument, likely because I correctly informed you in your Hilary/Trump thread about Clinton's gun policies.


I called you a troll because you were (and still are) being a troll. I moved the discussion to this thread because you asked me to and I thought I would be polite. And you are right, it does belong here. I did not go back to see who introduced the gun debate to my Trump V Hillary discussion, and I honestly did not pay attention to Hillary's gun policies ever.



> You did. And you are obviously incorrect. Because you don't acknowledge the history of the US. There is nothing in that simple statement that could be derived as the interpretation you made.
> You claim it takes an intellectual to decipher it.
> I disagree
> And I'm doubtful you're that intellectual


I thought I was acknowledging the history of the US.
I continue to disagree with you on possible interpretations of the 2nd amendment.



> I doubt there is a solution that's an absolute.


Again we can agree. compromise seems to be key in all policy making everywhere.



> From a practical pov, the best solution/s will favor the greatest number of people while infringing as little as possible on the minority position.


Again, I can see some hope here that you are thinking towards finding a solution.



> You continually argue to favor a minority at the expense of the majority.


And then you fall on your face again. What makes you think that the majority of Americans do not favour stricter gun control?



> A major flaw of socialism when taken to the extremes you have supported elsewhere in this forum, and now here.


Again, you bring up socialism while discussing gun control. why?



> An excellent example of what I just addressed.


So we are back to healthcare again. Lets stick to guns on this thread



> I asked you a question.
> This:
> So how and why is it unfair to bring up your socialist proclivities when they are obviously an issue that determines your opinions on what the US should embrace?
> You can answer or ignore.
> But a non-sequitur is BS.


Your question is: "how and why is it unfair to bring up your socialist proclivities" . The rest was loading the question.
And I answered that I never said it was unfair, because I didn't 
You want to know why I feel that my socialist proclivities are irrelevant? I think I answered that, in that gun laws have nothing to do with the the means of production that defines socialism.
You want to know why my left leaning political bias makes me suggest stricter gun reform in the US? Well, I believe the statistics that correlate the number of guns to the amount of gun violence suggest some causation. (brief answer)



> As with gun control, you aren't presenting solutions that necessarily work in the society I live in.
> And you haven't presented any solution to gun violence other than elimination of the Second Amendment as written.
> Not one single specific proposal, other than ^^^.


Well, I had two, but I guess you have trouble counting that high. You will have seen my rambling on social change above, most of which I am sure you will dismiss.



> Sean, you're obviously good with computers and software. I applaud you for your unselfish efforts in the help threads.


Aww shucks, thanks



> But here, you think in a manner my sister complains about, binary thinking.


Likewise


> Choices of 'on and off'. Either one way or the other.
> It doesn't work well with human problems.
> And when it's imposed, it's likened to dictatorships and various autocracies because that's what it takes to convince and demand obedience.
> Try critical thinking for a change.


You seem to be going back to calling me a Marxist Socialist here. You need to stop that. It is embarrassing (to you).

Oh, and next time I screw up my formatting, kindly shoot me a private message so that I can clean it up before you waste your own time.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> I feel like I am beating my head against a wall with you Johnny. Maybe I should stop.......(edited for brevity)


That's up to you.



> I didn't say it would be easy, it would probably be one of the most difficult things the US has ever done.


Like I've mentioned before, you don't understand your neighbor. One of the most difficult 'things' the US has endured was a civil war. A war to end slavery. A war to end an act of secession. Canada never experienced such a conflict taken to such extremes. The US has always had an element of volatility. And not always for our best interests.
Your arguments ignore our volatility and mistakenly ignore our character.
It's even evident today as Trump rallies his supporters with comments of another civil war and maintains his following.



> When Australia changed its gun laws ....


It's interesting how raw statistics taken with out context , with comparison can project a false sense of reality.
There is this to consider about the Australian situation:
* The Myth That Australia's Gun Laws Reduced Gun Homicides *
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-australias-gun-laws-reduced-gun-homicides/

There is this to consider about comparing the US to Australia
* Why Australia's famed gun control laws probably wouldn't reduce shooting deaths in America *
https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-australia-gun-law-deaths-20180926-story.html



> You have not refuted the idea that it is possible, .......


That you think our guaranteed rights granted in the Bill of Rights and incorporated in the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution can simply be rewritten to your satisfaction?
Mock you? 
You argue to restrict access to means of self defense in one's own home inferring it's as simple as snapping your fingers to guarantee security in a home?
Mock you? 

You still haven't offered any constructive opinions in regard to gun violence in the US other than inferring you want it made illegal to do illegal things 
We already have laws.
And yet, there is crime.



> Well, there were 4 statements there that you called fallacies


There have been others, also, elsewhere.
I suggest you post them and my responses if you want to discuss them.
Otherwise, it's just a typical time wasting debate tactic.



> As far as "Breaking the Constitution" goes, is a constitutional amendment considered a part of the constitution?



Sophistry lol.
Of course the Amendments are, collectively, the Constitution.
An Amendment is part of the US Constitution.
I suppose next, you'll be debating the definition of 'is' lol!
And we actually had a troll start a thread at TSG some 12 / 13 years ago by the screen name of 'Mick Jagger' that took the same thrashing over the Second Amendment as you, who resorted to arguing over the definition of 'is' in our arguments, after being thoroughly thrashed in his claims.
Well, are you going to do a 'Clinton' on us?
(sophistry... the food of pseudo-intellectuals )



> I gave you two ideas. They are not fully formed solutions, only a starting point. Repeal and replace the 2nd amendment or Re-Interpret it in such a manner that not everybody is permitted to bear arms.


A two for one-r eh!  
Looks more like a one-r to me 
You pitch a 'guns for no one scenario' and backpedal when it's convenient.

Logically ( as in critical thinking ) wouldn't it be better to first address the root causes of violence in the US before destroying one of the basic promises/rights granted to the citizen by our Bill of Rights and incorporated into our Constitution? ( that's rhetorical, the answer is obvious or at least should be  )



> I thought that the dissolution of the Berlin wall would not happen in my lifetime, but it happened anyway.


Irrelevant to the topic of this thread.



> I don't think the US population has that will frankly.


Then why are you wasting our time?
Oh, I forgot, you are pushing socialism. And a well armed citizenry is a lot hard to convince 



> Likewise


lol!
........................
I asked:


> Other than our Constitution, what specifically, have you presented as a solution, and I don't mean, 'looking around' for options.


Your response:


> My mother was a social worker, and my father and sister were both schoolteachers, so you can imagine that I have some bias towards early childhood education being a key part of building a better society in the long run.
> Micheal Moore, in his movie, Bowling for Columbine, talks about how American culture is ... how to put this... excessively violent. In a population of 300 million people however, there is a broad diversity of culture. I am not even sure how you can make the point that culturally,


And in what universe would that response be consider a reply to my question? LOL!



> America can't change.


You may be correct. But in what way does that impersonate a 'solution'?
Are you now arguing for a dictatorial/ autocracy solution?
Is that your link to an imposed socialist ideology?



> So the broad idea here is working towards consensus, community, lessening fear of the other, cooperating, building.


And you think you can do that by tearing a hole in our Constitution that guarantees our right to self defense?

I suggest you re-read this thread. Your 'broad idea' already been addressed, with the caveat of not imposing on the rights of the citizen.
So with that in mind, what have you proposed other than eliminating one of our Constitutional rights? Your proposal starts with and is dependent on that elimination of a Right.

Would you like a do-over?



> Prisons are not productive. guards don't produce anything, they just stand around watching prisoners.


Oh crap! 
Well, there goes critical thinking down the toilet. 



> I could go on.


I think you must live in a magical world, all of your own making 



> I called you a troll because you were (and still are) being a troll.


Whine, whine, whine lol!



> I moved the discussion to this thread because you asked me to and I thought I would be polite.


Not quite, I said you avoided this thread.
But here you are now 
Pushing controversial opinions and calling me a troll when I won't agree with you 



> I did not go back to see who introduced the gun debate to my Trump V Hillary discussion, and I honestly did not pay attention to Hillary's gun policies ever.


You might also consider that due to your ignorance of your neighbor to the south, your opinions of how to address gun violence in the US by at least rewriting our Constitution and at most, repealing elements of it, is just as flawed?
Of course not LOL!



> I continue to disagree with you on possible interpretations of the 2nd amendment.


Of course you do. 
I doubt there is anything that will change your mind on that.
So, all you have proposed is the elimination of a Right granted by our Bill of Rights and incorporated into our Constitution.

And the realization that you aggressively propose socialist solutions in other endeavors in the US does make you look suspicious as to your intent in altering our Constitution.
So, when I look at your presence in this thread, I do wonder if you are focusing debate on the issue of gun violence, or the acceptance of socialism through alteration of our laws and rights.
After all, if a citizen isn't allowed to defend him/her self, who would other than a government appointed official? And that cedes the power life and death of the innocent citizen to an authority.

You may win hearts and minds with 'free stuff', but it will be mostly fools that don't realize how important those Rights are.



> And then you fall on your face again. What makes you think that the majority of Americans do not favour stricter gun control?


Stricter gun control is not your argument. Total removal is. You do it through arguing to repeal/redefine a Constitutional Amendment.
No one in this thread has argued to reduce gun laws.
To the contrary. It's been a quest to restrict firearms to those that use them illegally.

Do you really think you can paint me as a right winger? LOL!
All anyone has to do is read what I've posted.
All anyone needs to know of my position in this thread is read the thread.

The same goes for you.
IMO, you've been intellectually dishonest from the getgo and I've called you on it many times.
And you respond by calling me a troll 

Most citizens want security in their lives, and don't feel it's there. Many reasons.
Lack of law enforcement, lack of competent judicial decisions, drug abuse, general crime, political malfeasance just to name a few.

Even I've posted, in this thread, I'd like to live in a gun free society. But it's not a perfet world.
And until it is, I want to have the right and ability to defend myself.

But your quest doesn't involve a 'perfect world'. It involves arguing for a socialist world.
I argue for pragmatism.
You argue to take away Rights.



> Again, you bring up socialism while discussing gun control. why?


Re-read this post.



> So we are back to healthcare again. Lets stick to guns on this thread


Sure, so why did you bring it up? 
Well, it is another example of your quest to spread socialism, and of course, the Second Amendment did originally address the right to defend against such transgressions if violence was used as a motivator.
And here you are motivating 
I suggest you not follow the motivation used by the Soviets, China, North Korea nor the defunct Yugoslavia.



> Your question is: "how and why is it unfair to bring up your socialist proclivities" . The rest was loading the question.


Wouldn't answer it, would you 



> And I answered that I never said it was unfair, because I didn't


And that is an answer to what question?

I remember it as this one:


> *So how and why is it unfair to bring up your socialist proclivities when they are obviously an issue that determines your opinions on what the US should embrace?*
> You can answer or ignore.
> But a non-sequitur is BS.


More of the same nonsense is not a reply. It's a non-sequitur.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=non-sequitur


> a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.


You pretend your nonsense is a reply, but it doesn't relate to the question asked.
You simply are no good at sophistry, Sean
Try harder 

Why shouldn't I question your motives?



> Well, I had two, but I guess you have trouble counting that high. You will have seen my rambling on social change above, most of which I am sure you will dismiss.


Well......all you did was state a solution from 2 points of view. But both involved elimination of the current meaning of the Second Amendment.
Do you really think readers haven't figured that out by now?
It's been your starting point during almost all of your entire presence in this thread.
You harp on it constantly.

I think you are a troll 



> You seem to be going back to calling me a Marxist Socialist here. You need to stop that. It is embarrassing (to you).


I really don't see how you can deny being a socialist, Sean.
In this forum, you have supported radical socialist solutions. And not just one.
And here you are in this thread attacking our Constitution.
I do think your motives are questionable, Sean.
So again, why shouldn't I refer to them?



> Oh, and next time I screw up my formatting, kindly shoot me a private message so that I can clean it up before you waste your own time.


My time was wasted during my failed first attempt to reply to your mess.
More would have been wasted waiting on you to return to the forum.

Actually, a lot was wasted on your continual repetition in this thread.
Nothing changed.
You've not addressed the violence but you continue to attack our Constitution.


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> One of the most difficult 'things' the US has endured was a civil war.


Your use of the word "endured" suggests that the war was not self inflicted. Did another country force the US into its civil war?
You statement makes me wonder if the 2nd amendment had a role in starting the war or making it worse than it otherwise would have been.



> The US has always had an element of volatility. And not always for our best interests.


So we can agree on that point.



> It's interesting how raw statistics taken with out context , with comparison can project a false sense of reality.
> There is this to consider about the Australian situation:
> * The Myth That Australia's Gun Laws Reduced Gun Homicides *
> https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-australias-gun-laws-reduced-gun-homicides/
> 
> There is this to consider about comparing the US to Australia
> * Why Australia's famed gun control laws probably wouldn't reduce shooting deaths in America *
> https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-australia-gun-law-deaths-20180926-story.html


I am wondering if you saw the same things in these articles that I did. The National Firearms Agreement, banned the possession of automatic and semiautomatic firearms. 
And it appears to have had the desired effect of reducing the number of mass shootings while having little effect on homicides and suicides.
Which makes sense, as it is difficult to use a long gun to commit suicide, while the banned long guns are the preferred weapons for mass shooters. So the takeaway from the article is that the gun restrictions did not go far enough.

I am done trying to convince you that making legislative changes is possible.



> Logically wouldn't it be better to first address the root causes of violence in the US


Yes, I started to do that in my post. but you misconstrued my ideas as having to be made along with the legislative changes. It must be my fault for not being clear enough.

When I suggested that you look at the Swiss model for gun control, you must not have done that.
The Swiss have high rates of gun ownership, just like Americans.
They have much lower rates of gun homicide and suicide. So why would that be?
I think we can be enlightened by your original position: " a society that's lost it's moral center"

I have to get going, may finish later.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> Your use of the word "endured" suggests that the war was not self inflicted. Did another country force the US into its civil war?
> You statement makes me wonder if the 2nd amendment had a role in starting the war or making it worse than it otherwise would have been.
> 
> So we can agree on that point.
> 
> I am wondering if you saw the same things in these articles that I did. The National Firearms Agreement, banned the possession of automatic and semiautomatic firearms.
> And it appears to have had the desired effect of reducing the number of mass shootings while having little effect on homicides and suicides.
> Which makes sense, as it is difficult to use a long gun to commit suicide, while the banned long guns are the preferred weapons for mass shooters. So the takeaway from the article is that the gun restrictions did not go far enough.
> 
> I am done trying to convince you that making legislative changes is possible.
> 
> Yes, I started to do that in my post. but you misconstrued my ideas as having to be made along with the legislative changes. It must be my fault for not being clear enough.
> 
> When I suggested that you look at the Swiss model for gun control, you must not have done that.
> The Swiss have high rates of gun ownership, just like Americans.
> They have much lower rates of gun homicide and suicide. So why would that be?
> I think we can be enlightened by your original position: " a society that's lost it's moral center"
> 
> I have to get going, may finish later.


This is boring, Sean.
You don't know our history as shown above.
You keep comparing dissimilar cultures as if one set of solutions works for all.
How about posting something productive to the context of the society/culture of the US rather than continually trashing our 
Constitutional Rights.



> I think we can be enlightened by your original position: " a society that's lost it's moral center"


That would, indeed, be a good vector to start making your comments.
So why don't you rethink your suggestions and start there.
I wait with baited breath as I suspect others do, also


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> This is boring, Sean.


I am not here to entertain you. 
And *you* chose to respond to one of my reply's to Chawbacon.



> You don't know our history as shown above.


And yet you don't see fit to point out my error.



> You keep comparing dissimilar cultures as if one set of solutions works for all.


And you keep dismissing solutions used by other cultures without explaining why they wouldn't work



> How about posting something productive to the context of the society/culture of the US rather than continually trashing our Constitutional Rights.


Fine,
It starts with basic society building.
People need to be well educated so they can understand their own needs and the needs of their neighbours. 
And how not to accidentally kill themselves or their neighbours with the guns they posses.

People need to be healthy, so they have the ability to be productive and help others.

Government needs to be nimble, so that when there is a problem, laws can be created to resolve them.

Corruption needs to be minimized.

Wealth needs to be distributed more evenly. I am not suggesting that we rob from the rich to give handouts to the poor.
There should be an expectation that if you put in a full day's work, you should be compensated with a level of pay that meets your basic needs.

Crime rates in general have been falling in the past several decades as I am sure that you have heard. Some have said there may be a relationship to the reduction of lead in the environment that is correlated to that.

You appear to be a conservative at heart Johnny. You are not willing to consider change to the status quo in terms of gun law, or the healthcare system. You said your views on abortion are hard Pro-Life.
Your views on climate change are balanced IMO.

You will have to work harder to convince me that you are a moderate.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> I am not here to entertain you.
> And *you* chose to respond to one of my reply's to Chawbacon.
> 
> And yet you don't see fit to point out my error.
> 
> And you keep dismissing solutions used by other cultures without explaining why they wouldn't work
> 
> Fine,
> It starts with basic society building.
> People need to be well educated so they can understand their own needs and the needs of their neighbours.
> And how not to accidentally kill themselves or their neighbours with the guns they posses.
> 
> People need to be healthy, so they have the ability to be productive and help others.
> 
> Government needs to be nimble, so that when there is a problem, laws can be created to resolve them.
> 
> Corruption needs to be minimized.
> 
> Wealth needs to be distributed more evenly. I am not suggesting that we rob from the rich to give handouts to the poor.
> There should be an expectation that if you put in a full day's work, you should be compensated with a level of pay that meets your basic needs.
> 
> Crime rates in general have been falling in the past several decades as I am sure that you have heard. Some have said there may be a relationship to the reduction of lead in the environment that is correlated to that.
> 
> You appear to be a conservative at heart Johnny. You are not willing to consider change to the status quo in terms of gun law, or the healthcare system. You said your views on abortion are hard Pro-Life.
> Your views on climate change are balanced IMO.
> 
> You will have to work harder to convince me that you are a moderate.





> I am not here to entertain you.
> And you chose to respond to one of my reply's to Chawbacon.
> And yet you don't see fit to point out my error.


I'm not here as a teacher, Sean, that was Mulder (  )



> And you keep dismissing solutions used by other cultures without explaining why they wouldn't work


Rather self evident. Different cultures express problems in different ways.
Solutions need to be derived for specifics.



> It starts with basic society building.


When I suggested critical thinking, I was serious.
You are now blueprinting the criteria for a predetermined culture/society.



> People need to be well educated so they can understand their own needs and the needs of their neighbours.
> And how not to accidentally kill themselves or their neighbours with the guns they posses.
> 
> People need to be healthy, so they have the ability to be productive and help others.
> 
> Government needs to be nimble, so that when there is a problem, laws can be created to resolve them.
> 
> Corruption needs to be minimized.
> 
> Wealth needs to be distributed more evenly. I am not suggesting that we rob from the rich to give handouts to the poor.
> There should be an expectation that if you put in a full day's work, you should be compensated with a level of pay that meets your basic needs.
> 
> Crime rates in general have been falling in the past several decades as I am sure that you have heard. Some have said there may be a relationship to the reduction of lead in the environment that is correlated to that.


That's not a solution for correction of what exists, it's what you want.
You aren't addressing the American culture and it's society, it's your 'perfect world'.



> People need to be well educated so they can understand their own needs and the needs of their neighbours.


What are these 'needs'?
Is this about materialism ....morality....ethics....combos or just everything?
And how do you propose doing that?



> And how not to accidentally kill themselves or their neighbours with the guns they posses.


Safety training seems reasonable. 
Who do you propose do the training?



> Government needs to be nimble, so that when there is a problem, laws can be created to resolve them.


The concept of law is to regulate behavior. Ideally to promote a system of justice.
You're positioning government as a problem solver and it's rather vague as to how that applies to the freedom and independence of the individual.



> Corruption needs to be minimized.


Yes. And how do you envision doing that in a society that resists?
Where do you start?( that 's a two part question )



> Wealth needs to be distributed more evenly. I am not suggesting that we rob from the rich to give handouts to the poor.


So, what economic system are you promoting?



> There should be an expectation that if you put in a full day's work, you should be compensated with a level of pay that meets your basic needs.


Touching on socialism. Guaranteeing a living wage.
Who decides what are basic needs?
How long is a full day's work?
If one person's needs are greater than another's, where is it justified to pay a greater amount for the same work, based on need?
Should the head of a household that has 4 dependents be paid a greater amount for the same work as one that has 2 dependents?

Hmmm. I can see resentments and problems with an economic structure like that.



> Crime rates in general have been falling in the past several decades as I am sure that you have heard.


With logic like that, why do anything, just wait it out till there's little to no crime?
(Hey, it's not my logic, you posted it )
(btw.....your statement ignores the politics of the day)

So....what's your solution concerning drug abuse...in the US, of course.

Should marijuana have been legalized? Should any recreational drug be legalized?
How do you intend to stop the abuse and addiction?

How are you going to teach morality in a nation that disagrees about what should be taught?

How are you going teach people not to hate? 
Not to hate along lines of differences?

There is a wide gap between your perfect world and the reality I live in.
It starts with...how?


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> ...............
> 
> You appear to be a conservative at heart Johnny. You are not willing to consider change to the status quo in terms of gun law, or the healthcare system. You said your views on abortion are hard Pro-Life.
> Your views on climate change are balanced IMO.
> 
> You will have to work harder to convince me that you are a moderate.




Reading comprehension and sophistry simply aren't your friends, Sean.

My concerns about your efforts to ban guns goes to the issue of legitimate self-defense.
You offer nothing in that regard.

You want a perfect world, which most people including me would like.
Your perfect world obviously isn't what everyone wants. It's a world of socialism.

You argue for social programs (like nationalizing the healthcare and insurance industry, free upper education ) that are obviously impractical and un-affordable .



> You said your views on abortion are hard Pro-Life.


No, I didn't.
I posted if you think I support 'Pro Life' you are making a big mistake.
And you made a BIG mistake.
I don't support the 'Pro Life' movement because it's not about ensuring a life, it's a political statement ensuring birth. Afterwards, they could care less. Someone else's problem.

You act as a fool in this forum, Sean.

You make up a lot of BS and obvious misrepresentations, Sean. Repeatedly.
I suspect it's the 'socialist' in you 



> You will have to work harder to convince me that you are a moderate.


If you haven't noticed by now, I don't care what you think of me.


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> I'm not here as a teacher, Sean, that was Mulder (  )


If you are not going to tell me *how *I am wrong, what is the point of even telling me *that *I am wrong?



> Rather self evident. Different cultures express problems in different ways.


Cultures are not as different as you seem to think they are.



> Solutions need to be derived for specifics.


I am not sure how to read that statement. Are you implying that if you have not derived the solution then it is invalid?



> When I suggested critical thinking, I was serious.
> You are now blueprinting the criteria for a predetermined culture/society.


Isn't that the idea? Perhaps you need to explain what you mean by "moral center" so that i can focus more precisely on the target



> That's not a solution for correction of what exists, it's what you want.


I am trying to define in broad strokes what would make a healthy society, where there is some kind of moral center that you are asking for.



> What are these 'needs'?


Shall we go to your Declaration of Independence for that?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."



> And how do you propose doing that?


I thought I was speaking toward that.



> Safety training seems reasonable.
> Who do you propose do the training?


Well, the NRA used to have a roll in that, but that organization seems to be mired in corruption.
It seems that it represents the interests of gun manufacturers rather than gun owners.
*Perhaps *it could be split into parts with separate missions. 
Firearm Safety and training.
Political Lobbying
Gun Advocacy and Marketing.



> The concept of law is to regulate behavior. Ideally to promote a system of justice.
> You're positioning government as a problem solver and it's rather vague as to how that applies to the freedom and independence of the individual.


Well, at this level of discussion, ideas are a bit vague. They can be fleshed out once general concepts are agreed on.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-system/The-functions-of-government
"In all modern states, governmental functions have greatly expanded with the emergence of government as an active force in guiding social and economic development"



> Yes. And how do you envision doing that in a society that resists?


Well you have a problem there. If the people cannot get behind the policies that the government that they themselves voted in, then what were they doing when they voted?



> Where do you start?( that 's a two part question )


You start with education - letting society know how the policies are designed for the greater good.



> So, what economic system are you promoting?


I have always promoted a mixed system.



> Touching on socialism. Guaranteeing a living wage.


I didn't say anything about a "guaranteed" living wage.



> Who decides what are basic needs?


That would be a function of government I would imagine.
I understand the efficiency of a capitalist system to motivate people to work, and to be efficient doing it. I also acknowledge that some organisations are better run by society rather than an individual or a board.



> How long is a full day's work?
> If one person's needs are greater than another's, where is it justified to pay a greater amount for the same work, based on need?
> Should the head of a household that has 4 dependents be paid a greater amount for the same work as one that has 2 dependents?
> Hmmm. I can see resentments and problems with an economic structure like that.


Back in the day, A family with a single breadwinner could live a middle class lifestyle. That changed.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/26/18744304/ceo-pay-ratio-disclosure-2018
Vox's Ezra Klein put it this way:
"Consider that for much of the post-World War II era, paying your CEO a lot of money didn't make much sense because the government would simply tax it all away. Top marginal tax rates on income were above 90 percent. President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts sent those top rates tumbling, and so a CEO who could negotiate a much bigger salary could also keep a much bigger salary."
....
"But there is another Reagan-era policy that has contributed to skyrocketing CEO pay: stock buybacks. Corporate executives have spent trillions of dollars buying back their company's own stocks since the 1980s to temporarily boost its value."

"Over the past 15 years or so, firms have spent an estimated 94 percent of corporate profits on buybacks and dividends. That means companies are barely investing any of their profits in their companies, or workers. Which is why we end up with charts that look like this."








Historically, corporate owners have had little incentive to pay their workers more than they had to. Hence the rise of unions. Implied in the above quotes is the return of the pre-Regan era rules in this regard.



> With logic like that, why do anything, just wait it out till there's little to no crime?
> (Hey, it's not my logic, you posted it )


Because... Diminishing returns. 
Do you not agree that crime prevention is cheaper than law enforcement?



> So....what's your solution concerning drug abuse...in the US, of course.


How about we go with the "four pillar approach"?:
Prevention, Harm Reduction, Treatment/Recovery, and Community Safety.
It seems to be an idea that is discussed in Canada, but I cannot see why the principles would not apply in the USA.



> Should marijuana have been legalized? Should any recreational drug be legalized?
> How do you intend to stop the abuse and addiction?


Yes, because drug and alcohol addiction should be treated like a disease rather than a crime.



> How are you going to teach morality in a nation that disagrees about what should be taught


I see your point. I don't even know morality means to you. I could start with the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".



> How are you going teach people not to hate?


That is something I am not expert at. How about an article from psychology today:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-angry-therapist/201701/how-not-hate-people



> There is a wide gap between your perfect world and the reality I live in.
> It starts with...how?


The world I exist in or the one I imagine is far from perfect. I am blessed to be living in the time and place that I am.
How do we move to a better world? By recognizing problems, identifying solutions, and implementing them one at a time.


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> My concerns about your efforts to ban guns goes to the issue of legitimate self-defense.
> You offer nothing in that regard.


Sure I do. Despite perceptions, Owning a gun is not an effective means of self defence
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/



> You argue for social programs (like nationalizing the healthcare and insurance industry, free upper education ) that are obviously impractical and un-affordable .


No, I was advocating for a single payer heath-care system where basic care is covered in a national system, and can be supplemented by premium care can be had through direct payment or private insurance. I don't think we actually got to the premium care part in our discussion. And where to draw the line between basic and premium healthcare is also something that can be debated.

Insurance is a broad category, that we did not discuss, other than in the context of healthcare. So, Car insurance, Home Insurance, Life Insurance etc, would all be Premium services that would be purchased from private insurers.



> No, I didn't.
> I posted if you think I support 'Pro Life' you are making a big mistake.
> And you made a BIG mistake.
> I don't support the 'Pro Life' movement because it's not about ensuring a life, it's a political statement ensuring birth. Afterwards, they could care less. Someone else's problem.
> You act as a fool in this forum, Sean.
> You make up a lot of BS and obvious misrepresentations, Sean. Repeatedly.
> I suspect it's the 'socialist' in you


Apologies, my mistake, I misread your post. Although I can't seem to find the post you are referring to. You did speak of *not* supporting the use of abortion as a means of birth control. An entirely reasonable position. Does that include the "morning after pill" (which technically does not induce an abortion.)



> If you haven't noticed by now, I don't care what you think of me.


I think I will judge you by what you do rather than what you say in this regard.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> If you are not going to tell me *how *I am wrong, what is the point of even telling me *that *I am wrong?
> ....................(edited for brevity).





> If you are not going to tell me how I am wrong, what is the point of even telling me that I am wrong?


You've been told 
You just don't like the explanations. 



> Cultures are not as different as you seem to think they are.


Can you point out, in the examples you've posted, how alike their current political systems are to the one in the US and the mentality of his followers compared to your examples?
Seriously, I'm doubtful.



> I am not sure how to read that statement.


Well, i've never accused you of being intelligent 
For one, how about specifically addressing the current trend to fascism in a large portion of my society. There are issues of general violence, death threats and of course potential gun related issues. It's there in the radical left, also, but not to such a large degree.



> Are you implying that if you have not derived the solution then it is invalid?


No, more to your intelligence as an issue. See above comment.



> Isn't that the idea?


An idea? 
Sean, please. Off with the silly sophistry lol!
An idea is all it is. Destroy a society and rebuilt to your satisfaction.
That's exactly the recommendation of one of Trump's early advisors, Steve Bannon.

How's that working out?
Not so good from my pov.



> I am trying to define in broad strokes


As to solution, how does a 'broad stroke' even recognize specific issues?
Sounds like a contradiction in terms.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=define
* state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of. *

That's right, Sean, S O P H I S T R Y..........
I've mentioned before you just aren't good at it and need to try harder 



> Shall we go to your Declaration of Independence for that?
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."


Looks like you dodged another question.
Where are 'needs' mentioned and why couldn't think for yourself?
You have argued for government control of our lives. That's not a 'need', that's an intrusion.

Let's look at your position in relation to the quote you posted:

* certain unalienable Rights-----> right to life*
In another thread, you support abortion. A direct conflict with that unalienable Rights

* Liberty---------> you support government intrusion into our lives. *Another direct conflict

*the right to the pursuit of Happiness------->* that's not a guarantee all pursuits will be successful

To say you're full of crap is an understatement, imho of course 
..........................
I posted:


> What are these 'needs'?
> Is this about materialism ....morality....ethics....combos or just everything?
> And how do you propose doing that?


you responded:


> I thought I was speaking toward that.


No, you weren't, as I explained in your position above.
Just mindless meanderings off topic.



> Well, the NRA used to have a roll in that, but that organization seems to be mired in corruption.
> It seems that it represents the interests of gun manufacturers rather than gun owners.
> Perhaps it could be split into parts with separate missions.
> Firearm Safety and training.
> Political Lobbying
> Gun Advocacy and Marketing.


That's a non answer. 
The NRA already has Firearm and Safety training.
I know because I took their course in handguns in order to get my concealed carry license, and no, I'm not a member of the NRA and not likely to become one because of their infusion of Russian money into the 2016 Trump campaign. 
But their Safety and Training is top notch.

................


> Well, at this level of discussion, ideas are a bit vague. They can be fleshed out once general concepts are agreed on.


I posted:


> The concept of law is to regulate behavior. Ideally to promote a system of justice.
> You're positioning government as a problem solver and it's rather vague as to how that applies to the freedom and independence of the individual.


And you dodged it with more vagueness 

you posted:


> "In all modern states, governmental functions have greatly expanded with the emergence of government as an active force in guiding social and economic development"


Seriously, can you understand the difference in that statement when the term *'active force in guiding social and economic development' * is used versus *' legislation used in social and economic development '*
One is steering hopefully for beneficial effects and the other is socialism by way of an autocracy or oligarchy.
You have made arguments for the latter and I don't see any change in your position, Sean.

What have you proposed is nothing buy socialism hidden in vagary.
Again, non responsive.

....................
you posted:


> Corruption needs to be minimized.


I posted:


> Yes. And how do you envision doing that in a society that resists?





> Well you have a problem there. If the people cannot get behind the policies that the government that they themselves voted in, then what were they doing when they voted?


Again a non answer.
This is a problem in our society and one that you should be addressing if you are claiming you have solutions.
(which you obviously don't)

.....................


> You start with education - letting society know how the policies are designed for the greater good.


How would you do that?
Do you think you can legislate what is taught in the public school system in a free and democratic society?
Just pointing out, religion has an influence in that realm and you'll be butting heads with them in certain situations. Like from science ( evolution ) to morality.
Do you think you can legislate religion's impact?



> I have always promoted a mixed system.


Well.....it hasn't looked like it in other thread were you took to advancing arguments supporting the extremes of socialism.
Even in this thread you are advocating a living wage.
I don't think you're being honest because it would look bad in this thread.



> I didn't say anything about a "guaranteed" living wage.


What's the point of arguing for a living wage if it's not guaranteed? LOL!

Sean, you simply are not thinking the impact of your expressed thoughts.
You think linearly in a binary fashion. It doesn't work here in this forum. Computers and software, yes, but that will probably change with AI if it hasn't already.

......................
I posted:


> Who decides what are basic needs?


Your response:


> That would be a function of government I would imagine.


Yeah, buddy 
Government control of our lives, communist style 

Are you really that blind?

.....................
I posted:


> How long is a full day's work?
> If one person's needs are greater than another's, where is it justified to pay a greater amount for the same work, based on need?
> Should the head of a household that has 4 dependents be paid a greater amount for the same work as one that has 2 dependents?
> Hmmm. I can see resentments and problems with an economic structure like that.


You responded completely off topic of the question:


> Back in the day, A family with a single breadwinner could live a middle class lifestyle. That changed.
> ( edited for brevity)
> Which is why we end up with charts that look like this."


Not one single comment in that diatribe addressed my question.
All you did was go into histrionics for a diversion.
So I'll repeat it again a little simpler.
In your argument of pay associated with 'needs',
Should the head of a household that has 4 dependents be paid a greater amount for the same work as one that has 2 dependents?
It's not a trick question and it's conceptually important.

...................
To your diatribe, unless you are an owner ( as in shareholder) of a business or corporation, it's none of your damn business how much the stockholders agree to pay their corporate officers, the caveat being no laws are being broken by those officers.
So, your argument is to make it illegal to be too profitable by way of taxation.
That's a built in problem problem with the extremes of socialism, legislated inefficiency.
Canada along with Europe only looked through telescopes while the US was first to land a man on the moon and return 
We've done great things in the past.
Not so much lately as wars, corruption and creeping socialism have eroded our wealth and created an inability to do greater things today.

All you seem to think about is wealth envy and how to spend what's left.
Well, jokes on you because all we have as a nation are mounting debts with the .01%er's ready to jump ship and invest elsewhere when it comes to 'wealth taxes'.

Binary logic......you have a choice of making things better or a choice of making things worse. What do you choose, Sean?
And if you post more weasel words, expect to see me comment 



> Should marijuana have been legalized?


You gave no response.



> Should any recreational drug be legalized?


You gave no response.



> How are you going to teach morality in a nation that disagrees about what should be taught


You dodged.
You posted:


> I don't even know morality means to you. I could start with the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".


If you go that religious route, many current fundamentalists do not subscribe to that concept. They rely on the Old Testament's an eye for an eye.
And Islam with the teachings of Mohammad often don't seem cozy with the concept.
Again, how are you going to teach morality in a nation that disagrees about what should be taught?
What is even the criteria for making a decision on what is to be taught with such diversity?

You claimed you wanted a discussion about solutions.
Well, I have questions about your solutions.
Most appear to be by legislation in a nation that doesn't agree with your methodology.



> That is something I am not expert at


If you aren't an expert on psychology, how do you decide what's appropriate for an expert opinion?
You posted this link:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-angry-therapist/201701/how-not-hate-people
It's a blog.
https://medium.com/@angrytherapist
He's a self help artist and I see no credentials
https://www.theangrytherapist.com/
He sells stuff 
He uses really bad language in the titles of the books he's written that are for sale 

That was truly funny stuff, Sean LOL!

Do you wonder why I don't take you seriously?
Why I seem to have contempt for what you post?

Are you so unable to construct a reply in your own words you need to quote a self help artist?
Dude! 



> I am blessed to be living in the time and place that I am.
> How do we move to a better world? By recognizing problems, identifying solutions, and implementing them one at a time.


That is a noble task.
When are you deciding to start?


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> Sure I do. Despite perceptions, Owning a gun is not an effective means of self defence.........
> 
> ( edited for brevity  ) .





> Despite perceptions, Owning a gun is not an effective means of self defence


I read your link. There is no such statement or conclusion.
It's about inappropriate uses.
About data concerning the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

There is absolutely no commentary about a firearm being ineffective as a means of self defense.
Mostly addressing overstated claims firearms were used in self defense.

Again, I seem to be calling you out on you BS sophistry.



> No, I was advocating for a single payer heath-care system where basic care is covered in a national system


And the wages of doctors and hospital staff being essentially indexed to match government approved treatments.
You posted it.
You even claimed doctors would approve by the mere trait of altruism.
More BS.



> And where to draw the line between basic and premium healthcare is also something that can be debated.


Then go back to your thread on socializing the medical industry and debate it.
This is about 'guns', it's even in the title of this thread.
I know, because I wrote it 



> I misread your post.



You seem to do that a lot.



> You did speak of not supporting the use of abortion as a means of birth control. An entirely reasonable position. Does that include the "morning after pill" (which technically does not induce an abortion.)


If you want to debate it, start a thread on it.
This thread is ......about......'guns' 
Side comment are OK with me, diversions not so much.



> I think I will judge you by what you do rather than what you say in this regard.


And pray tell, from your seat behind a monitor somewhere in Canada, how can you tell what I'm doing in Ohio?
( I don't have a video camera hooked up to any of my computers and there are no surveillance cameras any where on my property )

Looks like you're stuck with the words I use


----------



## SeanLaurence

John,
Having a discussion with you is analogous to playing tennis against a wall. (you would be the wall in this analogy)
You have not expressed any ideas of your own on how to solve any of the problems that you presented.
And you dismiss any ideas that I present with criticisms in the form of a single word or a short phrase
Even when I agree with you, you go out of your way to disagree with me.
So, like playing tennis against a wall, I can sharpen my debating skills, but the wall can't give me feedback. And it gets tiresome. The wall can never lose.

So again, I point out that you are not helping, and that you are acting as a troll.
I must apologize to the remainder of the board for feeding the troll.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> John,
> Having a discussion with you is analogous to playing tennis against a wall. (you would be the wall in this analogy)
> You have not expressed any ideas of your own on how to solve any of the problems that you presented.
> And you dismiss any ideas that I present with criticisms in the form of a single word or a short phrase
> Even when I agree with you, you go out of your way to disagree with me.
> So, like playing tennis against a wall, I can sharpen my debating skills, but the wall can't give me feedback. And it gets tiresome. The wall can never lose.
> 
> So again, I point out that you are not helping, and that you are acting as a troll.
> I must apologize to the remainder of the board for feeding the troll.


You are confused.
This is a debate type forum not a help forum where solutions are the immediate goal.

I started this thread with an opinion.
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/guns.1186438/


> Is this a problem of too many guns.....or more a society that's lost it's moral center?
> 
> I think it's the latter.


You are the only poster that went off on a tangent.
And you started it with name calling, your very first post in this thread.

https://forums.techguy.org/threads/guns.1186438/page-8#post-9644697


> Back to my original premise.. you are a troll.


You introduced a conversation from another thread, that you started, where you made false claims about gun control and I corrected you.

Your post
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/...r-hillary-clinton.1233176/page-3#post-9644355

My reply:
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/...r-hillary-clinton.1233176/page-3#post-9644580

You lie to the forum when you claim I give no explanations for those fallacies.
They are right there in my post.
You obviously try a debate tactic of wasting my time proving myself, but they are right there in that post that I wrote and you read.

And in my thread, you introduced your socialist theories.
And I asked you to start your debates in new threads, this one is about......'guns'.
And no mention was made about a participant being made to provide solutions.
This thread is a discussion of a problem, not a solution for the problem.
If a solution is forwarded for discussion, it's debatable.

I've discussed and debated your incredible claims.
So far, you have posted nothing of value in this thread, other than your incredible ignorance of the topic. Your constant push for socialist solutions in tangential topics at the cost of our Constitution Rights.

You backpedal and speak in vague terms, not even understanding what many of them mean. You butcher logic and seem to think it's on an intellectual level. You aren't. As shown. Constantly.



> And you dismiss any ideas that I present with criticisms in the form of a single word or a short phrase


Indeed. It doesn't take much effort to refute ignorance.
Why bother with a wordy response when a short elegant ( and humorus  ) response does the job in short order?
Do you think you're something special and entitled to waste the forum's time?

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=elegant
I'll take definition #2


> pleasingly ingenious and simple.


Here is elegant-----> your solutions suck.
And that's not just a crude put down, I've proved it in this thread.

Of course you don't like that. Of course you'll keep on whining about it.
But you brought it on yourself 
It started right here with your very first post, addressing me:


> Back to my original premise.. you are a troll.


And note, in that post of yours, you quoted me from a different thread as if it was part of the discussion in this thread.
I've noted elsewhere, imo, you are intellectually dishonest on top of the silly crap you post here.



> Even when I agree with you, you go out of your way to disagree with me.


 whine whine whine.
You change your stories so often, sometimes I'm just not sure what you really mean 
You go from a socialist to a moderate at the drop of a hat. And back again.
I seem to remember you calling yourself a centrist elsewhere.
Maybe you don't know what you are? 
But you do whine well.



> So, like playing tennis against a wall, I can sharpen my debating skills, but the wall can't give me feedback. And it gets tiresome. The wall can never lose.


I think you are confused.
You go from claiming this thread is about producing solutions, and now you claim it's about debate.

Of course, it may be about discussing solutions, but you get upset when the debate part begins.

I suggested you think critically, I was serious.
All you've done to topic is make erroneous claims and whimper when called on them.
What's to debate?

If you think I'm going to play the game you and Jack do in your Clinton/Trump thread where you merely toss your opinions back and forth, you simply are not going to enjoy debating me.
You post a claim I know is bogus, I'm going to make you 'own' it. And I'll use debate to do it 
If you think that's a 'wall', well, that's on you.


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> You are confused.
> This is a debate type forum not a help forum where solutions are the immediate goal.


I think you are confused, You asked me a number of questions a few posts ago about how to solve some of these problems...
"So....what's your solution concerning drug abuse...in the US, of course."
"Should marijuana have been legalized? Should any recreational drug be legalized?
How do you intend to stop the abuse and addiction?"
"How are you going to teach morality in a nation that disagrees about what should be taught?"
"How are you going teach people not to hate?"



> I started this thread with an opinion.
> https://forums.techguy.org/threads/guns.1186438/


Yes, you asked and answered
"Is this a problem of too many guns.....or more a society that's lost it's moral center?
I think it's the latter."

And in post #118 I directly answered your initial question.

"It appears from your opening post that you believe that the "problem" (firearm related death) is that "society that's lost it's moral center?"
If that is the case, then the topic is not actually gun control, rather it is a societal problem."
I would posit that it is both. "



> You are the only poster that went off on a tangent.


When you use the word "Only", I only have to show one example to disprove your statement.
So how about RT's post welcoming one and all to come shoot with him. (Very nice offer by the way)



> And you started it with name calling, your very first post in this thread.
> https://forums.techguy.org/threads/guns.1186438/page-8#post-9644697


I would point out that was in response to you calling me a socialist in a pejorative manner.



> You introduced a conversation from another thread, that you started, where you made false claims about gun control and I corrected you.
> 
> Your post
> https://forums.techguy.org/threads/...r-hillary-clinton.1233176/page-3#post-9644355
> 
> My reply:
> https://forums.techguy.org/threads/...r-hillary-clinton.1233176/page-3#post-9644580


Those were long threads with many points made. I wish you would be more specific about which of my statements you feel are false.
You might feel that my assertion that "people who own guns in order to protect themselves are deluded." is not true. But is me saying that A lie? or are you referring to one of my other statements such as "I don't think the framer's had the idea of sport shooting in mind when they drafted the 2nd amendment." which is clearly a statement of my opinion and an invitation for you to refute, hopefully with some evidence.



> You lie to the forum when you claim I give no explanations for those fallacies.
> They are right there in my post.


Maybe sometimes you do, but I do notice a general lack of substance when I am trying to refute a reply such as "Obviously"



> You obviously try a debate tactic of wasting my time proving myself, but they are right there in that post that I wrote and you read.


When you call my statements "Sophistry" are you not doing the same thing?



> And in my thread, you introduced your socialist theories.


That is a mis-characterization of my remarks. Advocating for the idea of a single payer medical system can hardly called an introduction to socialism.



> And I asked you to start your debates in new threads, this one is about......'guns'.


I thought it was about "society that's lost it's moral center? I think it's the latter."



> And no mention was made about a participant being made to provide solutions.


I apologize for answering the questions you asked.



> This thread is a discussion of a problem, not a solution for the problem.
> If a solution is forwarded for discussion, it's debatable.


I am confused. Not withstanding having never seen any rules to that effect, is it ok to discuss solutions if they are "forwarded for discussion" then? Can you tell me what the mechanism is to do that so that I am clear?



> I've discussed and debated your incredible claims.
> So far, you have posted nothing of value in this thread, other than your incredible ignorance of the topic. Your constant push for socialist solutions in tangential topics at the cost of our Constitution Rights.


I would have to disagree on the value of my contributions to the thread. On balance I would suggest that they are greater than those of yourself.



> You backpedal and speak in vague terms, not even understanding what many of them mean. You butcher logic and seem to think it's on an intellectual level. You aren't. As shown. Constantly.


You would have to provide an example to back up that assertion. Much has been said, and you have not called me out on any butchered logic that I can recall.



> Indeed. It doesn't take much effort to refute ignorance.


Actually it does take more than writing a single word to refute an argument.



> Why bother with a wordy response when a short elegant ( and humorus  ) response does the job in short order?


Because writing "BS" is neither elegant, nor humorous, and it does not get the job done



> Do you think you're something special and entitled to waste the forum's time?


You seem to be wasting a fair bit of time yourself. Everyone is free to ignore this thread.



> https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=elegant
> I'll take definition #2


So now you are calling yourself ingenious after trying to call me out for false intellectualism?
I think they call that hypocrisy.



> Here is elegant-----> your solutions suck.
> And that's not just a crude put down, I've proved it in this thread.


That's it then. You win. What a masterful augment. Take a bow.



> You go from a socialist to a moderate at the drop of a hat. And back again.
> I seem to remember you calling yourself a centrist elsewhere.
> Maybe you don't know what you are?


Well there is your problem right there, You think a single label defines me and you get confused when I say something not consistent with that label.



> You go from claiming this thread is about producing solutions, and now you claim it's about debate.


Can we produce solutions and debate them? It does not have to be a binary thing.



> Of course, it may be about discussing solutions, but you get upset when the debate part begins.


I get "upset" when the debate is not done in good faith. For instance, If you are going to call me out for sophistry, you would need to explain why. To make such a accusation is somewhat libellous.



> I suggested you think critically, I was serious.
> All you've done to topic is make erroneous claims and whimper when called on them.


Name one.



> You post a claim I know is bogus, I'm going to make you 'own' it. And I'll use debate to do it


Please do.
And if you get lazy and fail to back up your assertion, then I will call you on it.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> I think you are confused, You asked me a number of questions a few posts ago about how to solve some of these problems..................
> 
> (Edited for brevity)


I thought about responding individually to your comments. But they are really only a rehash of the past. A rationalization by a poster that's been unable to actually debate in a debate forum, thinking distortions are intellectual creativity.

But all you are doing is whining.
I made points. 
Some you ignored.
Some you made up stuff or backpedaled in attempt to appear rational.

Your 'solution' in this thread did not address the reality of cultural differences, historic differences, internal social volatility, political volatility, contrast of moral values of differing religious groups ......did not address any considerations when comparing different cultures and what was even possible let alone needed in constructing a solution for a specific culture.

Essentially, you started debate as a troll repeating the same socialist mantra meandering through this thread, off topic. You even posted a desire to debate healthcare in this thread. You even brought up Living Wage and entered into a debate about 'needs' that ended in a communist style 'solution'. You wanted to debate various health plans.

You entered this thread as a rude dude.
You even entered with the plan to prove I was a troll. A troll in my own thread 

You initially jumped to the conclusion, that eliminating the meaning and promise of the Second Amendment was a solution.
I challenged that with the above criteria. I made my point in doing so.
Differing cultures are not susceptible to equivalent solutions because of the human factor.
I gave you examples. 
For the most part, you either didn't respond or when you did it was vague or misconstrued.

You actually provided no solution other than altering Constitutional Law so that all guns could be confiscated.
As I remember, all the sources you used for authority were misrepresented by you and even one was an internet self help blogger/author/book and video e-tailer.
You attempted sophistry, poorly.

You don't seem to have posted one true comment other than your name and a desire to damage our Constitution.
And this;


> Those were long threads with many points made. I wish you would be more specific about which of my statements you feel are false.


The four you originally asked for were addressed specifically in the link you posted:
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/...r-hillary-clinton.1233176/page-3#post-9644580

Sean, you even presented a link to the response you again demand from me.
Are you Ill?



> Actually it does take more than writing a single word to refute an argument.


I know. I used three words. 'Your solution sucks'.
And I derived that from previous commentary. Why waste words with repetition?

So, in keeping this reply short and eloquent.....you whine to much.
There just isn't anything left to debate with you.
I've addressed and debated your posts.
You just don't like the replies and their content.
Truthfully, I can see why. 
You look foolish.

So what is your presence in my thread really about?
From your first post in this thread:
You had a plan.
* Back to my original premise.. you are a troll. * 
Disruption.
You did that once before as I remember and was warned by an administrator.

No doubt you'll continue.
I suggest you stay to the topic.

You post BS, I'll still call you on it.


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> I thought about responding individually to your comments. But they are really only a rehash of the past. A rationalization by a poster that's been unable to actually debate in a debate forum, thinking distortions are intellectual creativity.


Whine whine whine
(Am I doing this right?)



> I made points. Some you ignored.


I addressed most of what you said.



> Some you made up stuff or backpedaled in attempt to appear rational.


You would have to provide an example to back up that assertion. Much has been said, and you have not called me out on any backpedaling.



> Your 'solution' in this thread did not address the reality of cultural differences, historic differences, internal social volatility, political volatility, contrast of moral values of differing religious groups ......did not address any considerations when comparing different cultures and what was even possible let alone needed in constructing a solution for a specific culture.


And you have never explained how any of these differences preclude any legislative or policy changes.



> Essentially, you started debate as a troll repeating the same socialist mantra meandering through this thread, off topic. You even posted a desire to debate healthcare in this thread. You even brought up Living Wage and entered into a debate about 'needs' that ended in a communist style 'solution'. You wanted to debate various health plans.


I responded to your trolling when I entered THIS thread.
Talking about healthcare in this thread is relevant when discussing "a society that's lost it's moral center?" Maybe you don't see that. Do I need to connect the dots?



> You entered this thread as a rude dude.
> You even entered with the plan to prove I was a troll. A troll in my own thread


Only you can demonstrate to the world that you are a troll. I am merely pointing out your inflammatory postings. I do so in an attempt to get you to recognize that behaviour and change.



> You initially jumped to the conclusion, that eliminating the meaning and promise of the Second Amendment was a solution.


Again, you mis-characterize my arguments.
I was suggesting that the Second Amendment itself may well be the problem and COULD be repealed.
or
That the way that I read the 2nd amendment seems to be different than how you interpret it, and that it is vague. Using the phrasing of the preamble, one could make active membership of a "well organized militia " a requirement for gun ownership. 
You seem to think that the Constitution and all of its amendments are perfect the way that they are, and that tampering with any of it is tantamount to destroying it, so I thought I might try a different tack.



> I challenged that with the above criteria. I made my point in doing so.
> Differing cultures are not susceptible to equivalent solutions because of the human factor.


I disagree about you making your point.
With 300 million people in the USA, surely not everyone is of the same culture.
I believe you made this point after I suggested looking at the Swiss model of gun control.
There are groups of people of German, French and Italian decent who live in America, just like in Switzerland. Surely they might appreciate a gun culture similar to the ones back in Europe.
Of course there still are cultural differences, but you have not been clear as to why those differences would affect the ability to change any gun regulations.



> You actually provided no solution other than altering Constitutional Law so that all guns could be confiscated.


When did I suggest "all guns could be confiscated?" 
I did provide more ideas as well, but they were aimed at a more "Moral " society (your word)
I am again unclear as to what your vision of that society would be, so I threw out some common sense ideas that you rejected out of hand.



> As I remember, all the sources you used for authority were misrepresented by you and even one was an internet self help blogger/author/book and video e-tailer.


Are you talking about my response in how to get people to not hate?
And I gave you an honest reply that I wasn't an expert.
But I did a quick google search and found an article that looked reasonable to me, so I posted a link.
And you didn't like it.



> You don't seem to have posted one true comment other than your name and a desire to damage our Constitution.


Sophistry



> The four you originally asked for were addressed specifically in the link you posted:
> https://forums.techguy.org/threads/...r-hillary-clinton.1233176/page-3#post-9644580
> Sean, you even presented a link to the response you again demand from me.


Just taking the first statement I made:
"I don't think the framer's had the idea of sport shooting in mind when they drafted the 2nd amendment."
You did not respond to it directly. You just said "You have no idea what the framers of the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution had in mind. ". Is it your position that they had sport shooting in mind contrary to what I might think? 
Or is it your position that nobody knows if they were thinking about sport shooting?


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> Whine whine whine
> (Am I doing this right?)
> ......................


Yes. You do it well.



> I addressed most of what you said.


No. A lot of non-replies and vague generalizations. You aren't here for discussion or debate. Much of what you posted was also bogus or misrepresentation. 
Some off topic disruption, too.



> You would have to provide an example to back up that assertion. Much has been said, and you have not called me out on any backpedaling.


No, I wouldn't.
You started in another thread with an absolute and proceeded to post in this one with generalities after I challenged you..
Remember, in this thread, in your first post, you claimed you continued your debate here from that Clinton/Trump thread.
But you know that.

https://forums.techguy.org/threads/...r-hillary-clinton.1233176/page-3#post-9644355


> Now people who own guns in order to protect themselves are deluded.
> There is no way that an individual with a gun could defend themselves against the might of US law enforcement.
> And again, most gun deaths in America are by suicide. If you have a gun in your home, you are far more likely to be shot.
> 
> The second amendment is a law, something created by human beings. It can be repealed if there is the political will.


That last sentence is a statement of both intent and your singular argument for a solution.
And you still deny cultural differences make any difference.



> and you have not called me out on any backpedaling.


Correct. I just called you out , above, with a specific . But I think I did mention it before.



> I responded to your trolling when I entered THIS thread.


I'll let an administrator decide that.

Your name never came up in this thread before you entered and the thread had been peaceful before you entered. You made first contact in this thread at the same time calling me a troll.

It seems to bother you tremendously, that you indulged in a firearms debate in your Clinton/Trump thread and I corrected you on your false claims.It even became obvious that Hillary Clinton's stance on gun control paralleled the majority of the participants in my 'gun' thread and definitely not your stance for the repeal of the Second Amendment.
It must be very embarrassing for you to have readers realize what a blunder that was on your part.
But the act of correcting you is not that of trolling.
It's simply debate. And if you look at your thread, there have been no further comments by me about your blunder. I corrected you and that was that.
But in my thread, you have obviously, and intentionally created much discord .
You even admitted to it. 


> Only you can demonstrate to the world that you are a troll. I am merely pointing out your inflammatory postings. I do so in an attempt to get you to recognize that behaviour and change.


You entered this thread with inflammatory rhetoric and blame the following events on me.
This:


> Back to my original premise.. you are a troll.


And then you post, 


> By calling me a socialist in a pejorative manner, you are not advancing your argument.


But I haven't called you a socialist in this thread, up to that point.
I did however comment in your thread, correctly


> Your argument is based on fallacies and a constant quest to impose socialism.


You have exhibited in this forum, arguments ( a quest ) to impose socialism upon my society.
Socialism taken to extremes, has a long history of restricting firearm ownership.
I have connected communism to your thought processes when discussing needs.
So, your position as a socialist is worthy of comment.
To the extremes:
* A Brief History of Repressive Regimes and Their Gun Laws *
https://mises.org/wire/brief-history-repressive-regimes-and-their-gun-laws
( and who is the Mises Institute? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mises_Institute )
There you go , comrade.



> Talking about healthcare in this thread is relevant when discussing "a society that's lost it's moral center?"


But the context you put in doesn't.
Your context.....what you want health care to be. Socialized.
The work ethic......what you want wages to be.
Health care issues that exist now could possibly be relevant, but not your desires.
You avoid discussion of the nature and causes of violent behavior.



> Maybe you don't see that. Do I need to connect the dots?


Yes.



> Only you can demonstrate to the world that you are a troll. I am merely pointing out your inflammatory postings.


I'll let an administrator decide how and why you entered the 'gun' thread.



> I do so in an attempt to get you to recognize that behaviour and change.


Not your job. That's for a moderator or an administrator.
It only makes you a Troll.



> Again, you mis-characterize my arguments.


Too late, you wrote what you wrote.



> I was suggesting that the Second Amendment itself may well be the problem and COULD be repealed.


No, you didn't. Sophistry.
You posted this for very first time, and what I initially responded to :
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/...r-hillary-clinton.1233176/page-3#post-9644355


> The second amendment is a law, something created by human beings. It can be repealed if there is the political will.





> That the way that I read the 2nd amendment seems to be different than how you interpret it,


Irrelevant to your previous claim as shown. The issue now is about your comments, not what the Amendment means.



> I disagree about you making your point.


Disagreeing now is irrelevant at this point.



> When did I suggest "all guns could be confiscated?"


By arguing to repeal the Right to own a firearm.



> Are you talking about my response in how to get people to not hate?


No, I'm pointing out how sloppy you are in choosing authoritative sources.

I posted:


> You don't seem to have posted one true comment other than your name and a desire to damage our Constitution.


You got me there, you did include a desire to debate socialized health care, and I got you to open up about the 'needs' of the public, decided by a government function. There was something else you wanted to debate or comment on, lol, almost forgot, a guaranteed living wage, but as far as the topic...'gun's, issues I questioned you on, your responses were vague, misleading, off topic and many times non responsive.



> "I don't think the framer's had the idea of sport shooting in mind when they drafted the 2nd amendment."
> You did not respond to it directly.


Well shame on me.
How could I know, are you a time traveling mind reader?
*'I don't think'* is a statement of the status of your thought processes.

I don't *have* to prove they had included coverage of sport shooting ( which did exist then ) I only need to point out there is no way you could know any form of legal firearm usage was excluded unless it was in print. And there is nothing in the Second Amendment that backs up your logic. And as the Courts of today have made no such rulings removing ownership of firearms used for specific legal purposes such as 'sport shooting', the great minds you like to fall back on, put no value to your premise.

Sean, this disruption and petty repetition will get you nowhere.


----------



## Johnny b

Interesting article that seems to mirror most of the participants in this thread:

* Poll: Number Of Americans Who Favor Stricter Gun Laws Continues To Grow *
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/20/7712...who-favor-stricter-gun-laws-continues-to-grow

This is obviously largely an issue of a lack of morality, from many issues such as criminality, mental health, political extremism, religious extremism and a host of societal/cultural issues.

Missing in the pew research findings is any data or perception of the need to repeal the Second Amendment as has been suggested in this thread as the solution to the violence in the US.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...r-stricter-gun-laws-has-increased-since-2017/

What is missing, imo, is the lack of enforcement of existing gun control legislation already enacted.
A point I've brought up in this thread with the example of Keller in a near by town in Ohio.
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/guns.1186438/page-7#post-9625191
What good are gun control laws if they aren't enforced?


----------



## Johnny b

Interesting article I think most here will relate to.
A pragmatic approach to the Second Amendment with out reducing the citizens ability for self defense:

* Opinion: What the gun lobby gets wrong about the 2nd Amendment *
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/sto...s-second-amendment-supreme-court-constitution

I've mentioned elsewhere, the NRA hasn't done any favors to those concerned about self defense by polarizing the situation by arguing a right to own military styled and derived, assault weapons. And it's funneling of Russian funds into the Trump campaign was bad imagery in support of a democratic society.

The Second Amendment doesn't provide guidance on what type of firearm can be used for self defense, only that we have a right to possess a firearm that can be used for self defense.
That's why the Feds can legislate restrictions on automatic weapons, rocket launchers, guided missiles and in general, military ordinance.



> The individual right to bear arms for self-defense, as announced by the Supreme Court in 2008, is likewise not unlimited. Even though the court in that case struck down a flat ban on possession of handguns that might be used for self-defense in people's homes, it observed that states could - for historical and public-policy safety reasons - prohibit people with felony convictions or people with mental illness from possessing guns, demonstrating that the very scope of the 2nd Amendment's protection takes account of countervailing public objectives. For instance, some states require that gun owners keep their firearms locked up if there are children living in the home, even though gun owners might prefer easier access to firearms for self-defense.


I've mentioned before, this was impressed upon me during my handgun safety course for my CC license:


> ....... A 2nd Amendment right to keep guns for self-defense does not eliminate the need for society to think about how guns should be responsibly employed, even in self-defense situations. If someone uses a gun purportedly for self-defense purposes and kills another person, the 2nd Amendment does not preclude an evaluation of whether the alleged threat was sufficient to justify the use of deadly force or whether the killing involved excessive force because reasonable non-lethal alternatives were available for the shooter to defend himself.


There was a recent altercation article in main stream media where a minor altercation occurred and a man was shot and killed as he was backing away.
The armed fellow was found guilty, as he should have.
But he'd had previous run ins with the law. He obviously shouldn't have had the ability to posses a firearm.

btw, the article was written by authoritative sources: 
Vikram D. Amar is dean and professor of law at the University of Illinois College of Law. Alan E. Brownstein is professor of law at the UC Davis School of Law.


----------



## Johnny b

As I've mentioned often (  ),
culture is an important element concerning gun regulation and here is an example and a major concern of gun laws being ignored.

* Texas Sheriff Proposes 'Sanctuary County' That Will Not Enforce Any New Federal Gun Laws: 'We're Not Going to Be Messing With the Second Amendment' *
https://www.newsweek.com/texas-sheriff-proposes-sanctuary-county-1460706



> Sheriff Roger Deeds of Hood County, Texas, has proposed turning his jurisdiction into a "sanctuary county" that would ignore any new gun laws introduced by the federal government.
> 
> This means the district will not spend money or resources enforcing federal laws Deeds believes are an infringement of residents' constitutional right to keep and bear arms.


I've mentioned before, a similar state of mind exists in Ohio.
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/guns.1186438/page-7#post-9625191

Eliminating the Second Amendment won't change these people's position on gun regulation because they already reject and violate gun control laws.


----------



## SeanLaurence

I am pleased to see you posting substantive articles on the topic at hand Johnny,
In particular, the LA times article articulates my position better than I am able to myself.

May I submit this one for your consideration?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/17/20697667/john-paul-stevens-second-amendment-repeal


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> I am pleased to see you posting substantive articles on the topic at hand Johnny,
> .......


Yes, I decided to jump away from your distractions and go back to my original intention before you entered the thread.
Thanks for understanding.


----------



## Cookiegal

Edited last post just to removed URL tag that shouldn't be there in the quote.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> .....
> 
> May I submit this one for your consideration?
> https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/17/20697667/john-paul-stevens-second-amendment-repeal


Sure.

It's rather difficult to criticize a person that's recently passed away.
He is critical of the NRA, and he has a point about them taking advantage of a recent Supreme Court Ruling.
But he is only one of many to give an opinion and it appears, peers on the Court disagree.
Of course, with the NRA losing memberships and incoming revenue from their adventure into Russian proxy funding of Trump's campaign, I suspect the NRA of today is not the powerhouse that Stevens remembered.
So there is that.

The article posted:


> even as the research shows the US leads the developed world in gun violence largely because it has so many guns - more than any other country in the world - and maintains lax means, legally or otherwise, to obtaining those weapons.


That's been addressed and acknowledged before you entered the discussion and is a problem.

But the article's position is that, just an interpretation by

the author.


> For much of US history, the Second Amendment was seen as defending collective, not individual, rights. This protected the right to bear arms only within the context of a militia. It's only more recently that the Second Amendment has been expanded to protect an individual right to bear arms, making it much more difficult to regulate guns.


As Jack pointed out, militias of the Revolutionary period were frequently pickup groups that assembled periodically and were not standing armies.
They were private citizens, and the Second Amendment presented those individuals the right to bear arms in order to become a collective in defense of their homes and lands.
So, that young author was playing a bit with sophistry , himself.
His interpretation has the appearance of building an simple absolute out of a more complex scenario.
Was he wrong, eh...no, but not correct at the same time.
The individual was always allowed the privilege of defense of his home. It simply isn't collectively any more except in unusual situations like radical extremist religions ( such as Waco https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/w...k=c4bdd5274e687a08410333dc141ad42a-1571608184 ) and existing extremist/hate group militias. Essentially, the balance of 'usage' shifted from groups to individuals over time in the civilian sector. 
But ownership initially was focused more to the individual because of the way militias operated at the time.
Private armies of that period, would, of course be a different situation.

A bit of history on private armies:
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/founding-contractors

Would removing firearms from those intending domestic terrorism, provide a solution?
History suggests not so much. Those intent on terrorism have many ways with out firearms.
There was the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing that killed 168 people and injured about 500.
The Columbine shooters had a backup plan using propane bombs, in place.
Letter bombs were the favorite tool of the Unibomber, about 16 of them sent by him. 
Church bombings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_against_African-American_churches

And there is this list:
Domestic terrorism in the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States

The US has some severe cultural/social problems to address before the concepts of violence, terrorism and murder will abate.

So, that's what I think.


----------



## Johnny b

Cookiegal said:


> Edited last post just to removed URL tag that shouldn't be there in the quote.


Sorry, I'm wearing glasses.
And I still miss those little things


----------



## Johnny b

Just came across this .

* FBI: More people killed with knives, hammers, clubs and even feet than rifles in 2018 *
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com...mers-clubs-and-even-feet-than-rifles-in-2018/



> According to the FBI, more than five times as many people were killed in 2018 by knives, clubs and other cutting instruments than with rifles.
> 
> The metrics show that there were a total of 1,515 deaths by knives or other cutting instruments last year. Compare that against 297 people killed by rifles.
> 
> It's a gap that widened significantly over 2017. In that year, the FBI said nearly four times as many people were stabbed to death as killed with rifles. During that year, the number of murders with rifles was around 400.
> 
> It gets better. More than 100 more people were killed with hammers and clubs in 2018 than were killed by rifles. There were 443 people killed with hammers, clubs, or other "blunt objects".


https://www.nola.com/opinions/article_6d0f0a42-3d36-59b6-a86b-527ac7064d8e.html

A comparison of various tools used for murder:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12


----------



## Johnny b

Sean, you really think solutions for the Swiss would be appropriate for our problems?


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> Just came across this .
> 
> * FBI: More people killed with knives, hammers, clubs and even feet than rifles in 2018 *
> https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com...mers-clubs-and-even-feet-than-rifles-in-2018/
> 
> https://www.nola.com/opinions/article_6d0f0a42-3d36-59b6-a86b-527ac7064d8e.html
> 
> A comparison of various tools used for murder:
> https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12


Rifles are not handguns. Handguns are responsible for far more deaths than all types of rifles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_v.../media/File:2016-Graph-Homicide-Stats-USA.png

The general public perceives that assault style rifles are more deadly than handgun because of the headline mass shootings that are almost always executed with AR's
This is a similar perception that people have to transportation safety: Airliner crashes make headlines, while car crashes, which kill far more people do not.
So most countries restrict handguns because they are more deadly, and AR weapons and high capacity magazines because they are deadly in mass shootings.
Hunting rifles, and target shooting rifles are usually left to responsible owners who do not use them for personal defence.


----------



## Johnny b

Hate groups in US:

https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map


> In 2018, we tracked 1,020 hate groups across the U.S.


Groups by type
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...he_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_hate_groups



> 2.1 Ku Klux Klan
> 2.2 Neo-Nazi
> 2.3 White nationalist
> 2.4 Racist skinheads
> 2.5 Extreme antigovernment movement
> 2.6 Black separatist/nationalist
> 2.7 Neo-Confederate
> 2.8 Christian Identity
> 2.9 Anti-LGBT
> 2.10 Anti-immigrant
> 2.11 Holocaust denial
> 2.12 Male supremacy
> 2.13 Neo-Völkisch
> 2.14 Hate music
> 2.15 Radical traditional Catholicism
> 2.16 Anti-Muslim
> 2.17 Other


2.17 Other


> The following groups have been listed as other or miscellaneous hate groups in the SPLC's annual reports (years in parentheses refer to the year in which the group is included):
> 211 Bootboys (2017, 2018)[66][2]
> a2z Publications (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018)[46][14][18][66][2]
> Active Democracy (2015, 2016)[14][18]
> Aggressive Christianity (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017) - was also listed in the anti-Muslim category[65][46][14][18][66]
> American Clarion (2016, 2017)[18][66]
> American Free Press (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018)[46][14][18][66][2]
> American Guard (2017, 2018)[66][2]
> Artisan Publishers (2014, 2015)[46][14]
> As-Sabiqun / Masjid al Islam (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018) - initially listed separately, then together[46][14][18][66][2]
> Bill Keller Ministries (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018)[46][14][18][66][2]
> Chick Publications (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018)[46][14][18][66][2]
> Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (2014, 2015, 2016)[46][14][18]
> Christian Ministries (2015)[14]
> Concerned Citizens and Friends of Illegal Immigration Law Enforcement (2017, 2018)[66][2]
> Cultural Studies Press (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018)[46][14][18][66][2]
> Dixie Giftshop (2018)[2]
> Dove World Outreach Center (2014)[46]
> European-American Evangelistic Crusades (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018)[46][14][18][66][2]
> Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights (2017)[66]
> Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018)[46][14][18][66][2]
> Geauga Constitutional Council (2014, 2015)[46][14]
> Hatreon (2017, 2018)[66][2]
> Hell Shaking Street Preachers (2018)[2]
> Holy Nation of Odin (2014, 2015, 2016)[46][14][18]
> Insight USA (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018)[46][14][18][66][2]
> Invictus Books (2014, 2015, 2016)[46][14][18]
> Jamaat al-Muslimeen (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018)[46][14][18][66][2]
> Jewish Defense League (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018)[46][14][18][66][2]
> Jewish Task Force (2016, 2017, 2018)[18][66][2]
> Kingston Group (2017, 2018)[66][2]
> Last Frontier Evangelism - Repent Alaska (2017, 2018)[66][2]
> Lordship Church (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018)[14][18][66][2]
> National Prayer Network (2014, 2015, 2016)[46][14][18]
> Nationalist Liberty Union (2018)[2]
> New Nation Productions (2015)[14]
> Official Street Preachers (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018)[46][14][18][66][2]
> Ozark Craft LC (2014, 2016, 2017, 2018)[46][18][66][2]
> Patriot Movement AZ (2018)[2]
> Power of Prophecy (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018)[46][14][18][66][2]
> Proud Boys (2017, 2018)[66][2]
> Reformation-Bible Puritan-Baptist Church/Vatican Assassins (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018)[46][14][18][66][2]
> Rense Radio Network (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018)[14][18][66][2]
> Repent Amarillo (2015, 2016)[14][18]
> Samanta Roy Institute of Science and Technology (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018)[46][14][18][66][2]
> Sharkhunters International (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018)[46][14][66][2]
> Society for the Practical Establishment and Perpetuation of the Ten Commandments (2014, 2015)[46][14]
> Sons of Aesir Motorcycle Club (2014, 2015)[46][14]
> Sons of Liberty Media (formerly You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International) (2014, 2016, 2017, 2018) - listed in anti-LGBT category in 2014 and the general hate category thereafter[43][18][66][2]
> Tea Party Nation (2014, 2015)[46][14]
> The Brother Nathanael Foundation (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018)[46][14][18][66][2]
> The Church at Kaweah (2014)[46]
> The Dakota Voice (2014, 2015)[46][14]
> Tony Alamo Christian Ministries (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018)[46][14][18][66][2]
> Truth At Last (2014, 2015)[46][14]
> White Pride Home School Resource Center (2014, 2015)[46][14]


I couldn't find a list of hate groups in Switzerland, only a list showing years and numbers of hate crimes:
http://hatecrime.osce.org/switzerland










I see no way to compare a solution that works for the Swiss, suitable for the US given the magnitude of just this alone.


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> Sean, you really think solutions for the Swiss would be appropriate for our problems?


Here are some things that the Swiss do differently.
Let me know if there are any real reasons why they can't be done in the US.
"Every year, Switzerland holds a shooting contest for kids aged 13 to 17."
"Many Swiss see gun ownership as part of a patriotic duty to protect their homeland" Well , I don't see how Americans see a need these day to repel an attack with the use of an armed militia, but back in the revolutionary days they did.
"Unlike the US, Switzerland has mandatory military service for men." - The US did have a draft, up until the end of Vietnam. I am not sure if that would fly today. The national guard could be used as a mechanism to get people trained up in firearm use and safety. Just spitballing here.
"In 2000, more than 25% of Swiss gun owners said they kept their weapon for military or police duty, while less than 5% of Americans said the same" - So a well trained militia, the point I was trying to get across with interpreting the 2nd amendment in a certain manner.
"In addition to the militia's arms, the country has about 2 million privately owned guns - a figure that has been plummeting over the past decade." So they also believe that the mere presence of guns creates a greater likely hood of gun death.
"Gun sellers follow strict licensing procedures. Swiss authorities decide on a local level whether to give people gun permits. They also keep a log of everyone who owns a gun in their region, known as a canton, though hunting rifles and some semiautomatic long arms are exempt from the permit requirement. But cantonal police don't take their duty dolling out gun licenses lightly. They might consult a psychiatrist or talk with authorities in other cantons where a prospective gun buyer has lived before to vet the person." I know that America is the land of freedom, but perhaps that freedom can be curtailed a bit when it comes to the issue of killing tools.
"Swiss laws are designed to prevent anyone who's violent or incompetent from owning a gun."
"Switzerland is also one of the richest, healthiest, and, by some measures, happiest countries in the world." Well, I can't help you there. The US is quite wealthy, but that wealth is not very evenly distributed.

"Switzerland still has one of the highest rates of gun violence in Europe, "


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> Rifles are not handguns. Handguns are responsible for far more deaths than all types of rifles.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_v.../media/File:2016-Graph-Homicide-Stats-USA.png


That point was brought up before you entered this thread, old news, Sean.
Actually, the post right before your first post in this thread.
Most of the angst is targeted toward the assault rifle, however.

My post:
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/guns.1186438/page-8#post-9640509


> Handguns are the problem. Despite being outnumbered by long guns, "Handguns are used in more than 87 percent of violent crimes," the report notes. In 2011, "handguns comprised 72.5 percent of the firearms used in murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents." Why do criminals prefer handguns? One reason, according to surveys of felons, is that they're "easily concealable."


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> Here are some things that the Swiss do differently.
> Let me know if there are any real reasons why they can't be done in the US.
> "Every year, Switzerland holds a shooting contest for kids aged 13 to 17."
> "Many Swiss see gun ownership as part of a patriotic duty to protect their homeland" Well , I don't see how Americans see a need these day to repel an attack with the use of an armed militia, but back in the revolutionary days they did.
> "Unlike the US, Switzerland has mandatory military service for men." - The US did have a draft, up until the end of Vietnam. I am not sure if that would fly today. The national guard could be used as a mechanism to get people trained up in firearm use and safety. Just spitballing here.
> "In 2000, more than 25% of Swiss gun owners said they kept their weapon for military or police duty, while less than 5% of Americans said the same" - So a well trained militia, the point I was trying to get across with interpreting the 2nd amendment in a certain manner.
> "In addition to the militia's arms, the country has about 2 million privately owned guns - a figure that has been plummeting over the past decade." So they also believe that the mere presence of guns creates a greater likely hood of gun death.
> "Gun sellers follow strict licensing procedures. Swiss authorities decide on a local level whether to give people gun permits. They also keep a log of everyone who owns a gun in their region, known as a canton, though hunting rifles and some semiautomatic long arms are exempt from the permit requirement. But cantonal police don't take their duty dolling out gun licenses lightly. They might consult a psychiatrist or talk with authorities in other cantons where a prospective gun buyer has lived before to vet the person." I know that America is the land of freedom, but perhaps that freedom can be curtailed a bit when it comes to the issue of killing tools.
> "Swiss laws are designed to prevent anyone who's violent or incompetent from owning a gun."
> "Switzerland is also one of the richest, healthiest, and, by some measures, happiest countries in the world." Well, I can't help you there. The US is quite wealthy, but that wealth is not very evenly distributed.
> 
> "Switzerland still has one of the highest rates of gun violence in Europe, "


Are you reading my posts?
I suggest you do.
There is no way you can equate Swiss culture to what I posted here:
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/guns.1186438/page-11#post-9645633


----------



## Johnny b

Sean, take a look at the top three hate groups in that list.
Trump had spoken of good people in them, after the Charlottesville, Virginia rally/murder
The rally:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally

Do you have to deal with that kind of ugly absurdity in Canada?


----------



## Johnny b

The US:
Race riots.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_...ted_States#Genocide_of_the_California_Indians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_...tes#Anti-immigrant_and_anti-Catholic_violence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_...ted_States#The_Reconstruction_era_(1863–1877)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States#The_lynching_era_(1878–1939)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_...nited_States#The_civil_rights_era_(1940–1971)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States#Nineteenth-century_events
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States#Twentieth-century_events
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States#Twenty-first-century_events

1763: Pontiac's War
1829: Cincinnati riot of 1829 (Cincinnati, Ohio)

Rioting against African Americans results in thousands leaving for Canada.

1829: Charlestown anti-Catholic riots (Charlestown, Massachusetts)
1831: Nat Turner's slave rebellion (Southampton County, Virginia)
1834: Massachusetts Convent Burning
1835: Washington DC Snow Riot
1835: Five Points Riot (New York City)
1841: Cincinnati riot of 1841 (Cincinnati, Ohio)
1844: Philadelphia Nativist Riots (May 6-8/July 5-8)
1851: Hoboken anti-German riot
1855: Bloody Monday (Louisville, Kentucky, anti-German riots)
Civil War period 1861-1865

1863: Detroit race riot
1863: New York City draft riots, Irish against blacks
Post-Civil War and Reconstruction period: 1865-1877

1866: New Orleans riot (New Orleans, Louisiana)
1866: Memphis riots of 1866 (Memphis, Tennessee), mostly ethnic Irish against African Americans
1868: Pulaski riot (Pulaski, Tennessee), whites against blacks
1868: St. Bernard Parish massacre, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, whites against blacks
1868: Opelousas massacre (Opelousas, Louisiana), whites against blacks
1868: Camilla race riot (Camilla, Georgia), whites against blacks
1868: Ward Island riot

Irish and German-American indigent immigrants, temporarily interned at Wards Island by the Commissioners of Emigration, begin rioting following an altercation between two residents, resulting in thirty men seriously wounded and around sixty arrested.[38]

1870: Eutaw massacre, whites against blacks
1870: Laurens, South Carolina
1870: Kirk-Holden war: Alamance County, North Carolina

Federal troops, led by Col. Kirk and requested by NC governor Holden, were sent to extinguish racial violence. Holden was eventually impeached because of the offensive.

1870: New York City orange riot
1871: Meridian race riot of 1871, Meridian, Mississippi, whites against blacks
1871: Second New York City orange riot
1871: Los Angeles anti-Chinese riot, mixed Mexican and white mob killed 17-20 Chinese in the largest mass lynching in U.S. history
1871: Scranton coal riot

Violence occurs between striking members of a miners' union in Scranton, Pennsylvania when Welsh miners attack Irish and German-American miners who chose to leave the union and accept the terms offered by local mining companies.[39]

1873: Colfax, Louisiana, white Democrats against black Republicans
1874: Vicksburg, Mississippi
1874: Battle of Liberty Place, New Orleans, Louisiana[40] After contested gubernatorial election, Democrats took over state buildings for three days
1874: Coushatta massacre, Coushatta, Louisiana, white Democrats against black Republicans
1875: Yazoo City, Mississippi
1875: Clinton, Mississippi
1876: Statewide violence in South Carolina
1876: Hamburg massacre, Hamburg, South Carolina
1876: Ellenton riot, Ellenton, South Carolina

Jim Crow period: 1877-1914
Further information: Nadir of American race relations

1885: Rock Springs, Wyoming
1885: Tacoma, Washington
1886: Pittsburgh riot
1886: Seattle, Washington
1887: Denver riot of 1887
1887: Hells Canyon Massacre

In one of the largest civil disturbances in the city's history, fighting between Swedish, Hungarian and Polish immigrants resulted in the shooting death of one man and several others were injured before it was broken up by police.[41]

1887: Thibodaux massacre, Thibodaux, Louisiana-strike of 10,000 sugar-cane workers was opposed by whites, who rioted and killed an estimated 50 African Americans
1891: New Orleans anti-Italian riot

A lynch mob storms a local jail and hangs 11 Italians following the acquittal of several Sicilian immigrants alleged to be involved in the murder of New Orleans police chief David Hennessy.

1891: 1st Omaha race riot

10,000 white people storm the local courthouse to beat and lynch Joe Coe, alleged to have raped a white girl.

1894: Buffalo, New York riot of 1894

Two groups of Irish and Italian-Americans are arrested by police after fighting following a barroom brawl. After the mob is dispersed by police, five Italians are arrested while two others are sent to a local hospital.[42]

1894: Bituminous coal miners' strike

Much of the violence in this national strike was not specifically racial. In Iowa, where employees of Consolidation Coal Company (Iowa) refused to join the strike, armed confrontation between strikers and strike breakers took on racial overtones because the majority of Consolidation's employees were African American. The National Guard was mobilized to avert open warfare.[43][44][45]

1895: 1895 New Orleans dockworkers riot
1898: Wilmington race riot

A group of Democrats sought to remove African-Americans from the political scene, and went about this by launching a campaign of accusing African-American men of sexually assaulting white women. About five hundred white men attacked and burned Alex Manly's office, a newspaper editor who suggested African-American men and white women had consensual relationships. Fourteen African-Americans were killed.[46]

1898: Lake City, South Carolina
1898: Greenwood County, South Carolina
1899: Newburg, New York riot

Angered about hiring of African-American workers, a group of 80-100 Arab laborers attack African Americans near the Freeman & Hammond brick yard, with numerous men injured on both sides.[47]

1900: New Orleans, Louisiana: Robert Charles riots
1900: New York City
1902: New York City

Anti-Semitic riots initiated by Irish factory workers and city policemen against thousands of Jews attending Jacob Joseph's funeral

1906: Little Rock, Arkansas

Started after a white police officer in Argenta (North Little Rock) killed a black musician, and another black was killed; racial tensions rose with exchange of gunfire, resulting in half a block of buildings burned down; whites rioted and some blacks fled the city.[48]

1906: Atlanta riots, Georgia

In September after two newspapers printed stories about African-American men assaulting white women anti-African-American violence broke out. Roughly 10,000 white men and boys took the street, resulting in the deaths of 25 to 100 African-Americans, along with hundreds injured.[46]

1906: Wahalak & Scooba, Mississippi[49]
1907: Bellingham riots, Washington
1908: Springfield, Illinois
1909: Greek Town riot

A successful Greek immigrant community in South Omaha, Nebraska is burnt to the ground by ethnic whites and its residents are forced to leave town.[50]

1910: Nationwide riots following the heavyweight championship fight between Jack Johnson and Jim Jeffries in Reno, Nevada on July 4
1910 Slocum, Texas massacre, between eight and two hundred black residents around Slocum, Texas were killed by hundreds of armed white men. Eleven white men were arrested, none went to trial.[51]

War and Inter-War period: 1914-1945
Further information: Nadir of American race relations

1917: East St. Louis, Illinois

On July 1st, an African-American man was rumored to have killed a white man. Violence against African-American continued for a week, resulting in estimations of 40 to 200 dead African-Americans. In addition, almost 6,000 African-Americans lost their homes during the riots then fled East St. Louis.[46]

1917: Chester, Pennsylvania
1917: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
1917: Houston, Texas
Red Summer of 1919. Tension in the summer of 1919 stemmed significantly from white soldiers returning from World War I and finding that their jobs had been taken by African-American veterans.[46]
1919: Elaine, Arkansas
1919: Washington, D.C.
1919: Jenkins County, Georgia
1919: Macon, Mississippi, race riot
1919: Chicago, Illinois
1919: Baltimore, Maryland
1919: Omaha, Nebraska
1919: Charleston, South Carolina
1919: Longview, Texas
1919: Knoxville, Tennessee
1920: Ocoee, Florida
1920: West Frankfort, Illinois
1921: Tulsa, Oklahoma

Between May 31st and June 1st, a young white woman accused an African American man of grabbing her arm in an elevator. The man Dick Rowland was arrested and police launched an investigation. A mob of armed white men gathered outside the Tulsa County Courthouse, where gunfire ensued. During the violence, 1,250 homes were destroyed and roughly 6,000 African-Americans were imprisoned after the Oklahoma National Guard was called in. The state of Oklahoma reports that twenty-six African-Americans died along with 10 whites.

1923: Rosewood, Florida (area is now an outgrowth of Cedar Key, Florida)
1927: Little Rock, Arkansas

Lynching of John Carter, a suspect in a murder, was followed by rioting by 5,000 whites in the city, who destroyed a black business area[52]

1927 Poughkeepsie, New York

A wave of civil unrest, violence, and vandalism by local White mobs against Blacks, as well Greek, Jewish, Chinese and Puerto Rican targets in the community.[citation needed]

1930: Watsonville, California
1935: Harlem, Manhattan, New York
1943: Detroit, Michigain

In late June a fistfight broke out between an African-American man and a white man at an amusement park named Belle Isle. The violence escalated from there and led to three days of intense fighting, in which 6,000 United States Army troops were brought in. This resulted in twenty-five African-Americans dying, along with nine white deaths and a total of seven hundred injured persons.[46]

1943: Harlem, Manhattan, New York
1943: Los Angeles, California
1944: Guam

Civil rights movement: 1955-1973
1963

Birmingham riot of 1963; Birmingham, Alabama - May
Cambridge riot of 1963; Cambridge, Maryland - June

1964

Rochester 1964 race riot; Rochester, New York - July
New York City 1964 riot; New York City - July
Philadelphia 1964 race riot; Philadelphia - August
Jersey City 1964 race riot, August 2-4, Jersey City, New Jersey
Paterson 1964 race riot, August 11-13, Paterson, New Jersey
Elizabeth 1964 race riot, August 11-13, Elizabeth, New Jersey
Chicago 1964 race riot, Dixmoor riot, August 16-17, Chicago

1965

Watts riots; Los Angeles, California - August

This predominately African-American neighborhood exploded with violence from August 11th to August 17th after the arrest of 21-year old Marquette Frye, a black motorist who was arrested by a white highway patrolman. During his arrest a crowd had gathered and a fight broke out between the crowd and the police, escalating to the point in which rocks and concrete were thrown at police. 30,000 people were recorded participating in the riots and fights with police, which left thirty four people dead, 1,000 injured and 4,000 arrested.

1966

Hough riots; Cleveland, Ohio - July
Division Street riots; Chicago, Illinois - June
Marquette Park riot; Chicago, Illinois - August
Hunters Point riot; San Francisco - September

1967

1967 Newark riots; Newark, New Jersey - July
1967 Plainfield riots; Plainfield, New Jersey - July
12th Street riot; Detroit, Michigan - July
1967 New York City riot; Harlem, New York City - July
Cambridge riot of 1967; Cambridge, Maryland - July
1967 Rochester riot; Rochester, New York - July
1967 Pontiac riot; Pontiac, Michigan - July
1967 Toledo riot; Toledo, Ohio - July
1967 Flint riot; Flint, Michigan - July
1967 Grand Rapids riot; Grand Rapids, Michigan - July
1967 Houston riot; Houston, Texas - July
1967 Englewood riot; Englewood, New Jersey - July
1967 Tucson riot; Tucson, Arizona - July
1967 Milwaukee riot; Milwaukee, Wisconsin - July
Minneapolis North Side riots; Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota - August
1967 Albina Riot Portland, Oregon - August 30[53]

1968

Orangeburg massacre; Orangeburg, South Carolina - February
King assassination riots: 125 cities in April and May, in response to the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr. including:
Baltimore riot of 1968; Baltimore Maryland
1968 Washington, D.C. riots; Washington, D.C.
1968 New York City riot; New York City
West Side Riots; Chicago
1968 Detroit riot; Detroit, Michigan
Louisville riots of 1968; Louisville, Kentucky
Hill District MLK riots; Pittsburgh, PA
Summit, Illinois, race riot at Argo High School, September 1968
1968 Miami riot
1968 Democratic National Convention

1969

1969 York race riot; York, Pennsylvania - July
1969 Hartford Riots, September 1-4, Hartford, Connecticut

1970

Augusta riot; Augusta, Georgia - May
Jackson State killings; Jackson, Mississippi - May
Asbury Park riot; Asbury Park, New Jersey - July
Chicano Moratorium, an anti Vietnam War protest turned riot in East Los Angeles - August

1971

East LA Riots, January 31, East Los Angeles, California
Bridgeport Riots, May 20-21, Bridgeport, Connecticut
Chattanooga riot,[54] May 21-24, Chattanooga, Tennessee
Albuquerque Riots,[55] June 13-14, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Oxnard Riots, July 19, Oxnard, California
Riverside Riots, August 8-9, Riverside, California
Camden riots, August 19-22, Camden, New Jersey

1972

Escambia High School riots; Pensacola, Florida
Blackstone Park Riots, July 16-18, Boston, Massachusetts

1973

Santos Rodriguez riot, Dallas, Texas July 28, 1973

Post-Civil Rights Era: 1974-1988

Boston busing crisis
Racial violence in Marquette Park, Chicago

1977

New York City Blackout riot

1978

Moody Park riots; Houston, Texas

1980

Miami riot 1980 - following the acquittal of four Miami-Dade Police officers in the death of Arthur McDuffie. McDuffie, an African-American, died from injuries sustained at the hands of four white officers trying to arrest him after a high-speed chase.

This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.
Since 1988

1991: Crown Heights riot - May - between West Indian immigrants and the area's large Hasidic Jewish community, over the accidental killing of a Guyanese immigrant child by an Orthodox Jewish motorist. In its wake, several Jews were seriously injured; one Orthodox Jewish man, Yankel Rosenbaum, was killed; and a non-Jewish man, allegedly mistaken by rioters for a Jew, was killed by a group of African-American men.
1991: Overtown, Miami - In the heavily Black section against Cuban Americans, like earlier riots there in 1982 and 1984.
1992: 1992 Los Angeles riots - April 29 to May 5 - a series of riots, lootings, arsons and civil disturbance that occurred in Los Angeles County, California in 1992, following the acquittal of police officers on trial regarding the assault of Rodney King.
1995: St. Petersburg, Florida riot of 1996, caused by protests against racial profiling and police brutality.
2001: 2001 Cincinnati riots - April - in the African-American section of Over-the-Rhine.
2009: Oakland, CA - Riots following the BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant.
2012 Anaheim, California Riot-followed the shooting of two Hispanic males
2014: Ferguson, MO riots - Riots following the Shooting of Michael Brown
2015: 2015 Baltimore riots - Riots following the death of Freddie Gray
2015: Ferguson unrest - Riots following the anniversary of the Shooting of Michael Brown
2016: 2016 Milwaukee riots - Riots following the fatal shooting of 23 year old Sylville Smith.
2016: Charlotte riot, September 20-21, Riots started in response to the shooting of Keith Lamont Scott by police

See also

flagUnited States portal iconSociety portal

Apartheid
Jim Crow laws
List of incidents of civil unrest in the United States
List of race riots
List of United States military history events
Little Rock Nine
Racial segregation in the United States
Racism in the United States
Timeline of riots and civil unrest in Omaha, Nebraska
World timeline of race riots
Lynchings: By State and Race, 1882-1968

Pretty damn horrific history, Sean.
That's an image few Americans will admit to.

But that is our history and our society suffered for it. Obviously still is in many ways.
Can you understand the severity?
Was it the same for you Canadians?
Do you think we're really alike?


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> Pretty damn horrific history, Sean.
> That's an image few Americans will admit to.
> 
> But that is our history and our society suffered for it. Obviously still is in many ways.
> Can you understand the severity?
> Was it the same for you Canadians?
> Do you think we're really alike?


Yes, that is a long list of riots and civil unrest.
I am not sure of the point you are making with regards to gun laws.
Citizens need to protect yourself from black mobs?
Citizens need to have superior firepower in order to oppress minority citizens?
These examples of civil unrest were made more deadly with the involvement of firearms?
Citizen owned firearms helped to quell the unrest - things would have been much worse otherwise?

Although, I freely admit to only knowing about many of these examples, It is a longer list than I thought.
It seems that the majority of these problems were triggered by racial divisions.
So I come back to the need for social change. When minority groups can feel secure in their health, education, income, wealth, etc, there won't be cause for rioting.
This type of change will take a long time, but there is a need to get started.
Now we could talk about 1st amendment rights with regards to hate speech. But that would be off topic. In Canada, hate speech is outlawed, but I am pretty sure it is not in America.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> Yes, that is a long list of riots and civil unrest.
> I am not sure of the point you are making with regards to gun laws.
> '.....................


It's an issue of cultural differences that are so extreme, you appear to have no understanding that what you want is impossible to do, in a culture you do not understand..
When I stated earlier that you live in a dream world of your own making, I was serious.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> Yes, that is a long list of riots and civil unrest.
> I am not sure of the point you are making with regards to gun laws.
> Citizens need to protect yourself from black mobs?
> Citizens need to have superior firepower in order to oppress minority citizens?
> These examples of civil unrest were made more deadly with the involvement of firearms?
> Citizen owned firearms helped to quell the unrest - things would have been much worse otherwise?
> 
> Although, I freely admit to only knowing about many of these examples, It is a longer list than I thought.
> It seems that the majority of these problems were triggered by racial divisions.
> So I come back to the need for social change. When minority groups can feel secure in their health, education, income, wealth, etc, there won't be cause for rioting.
> This type of change will take a long time, but there is a need to get started.
> Now we could talk about 1st amendment rights with regards to hate speech. But that would be off topic. In Canada, hate speech is outlawed, but I am pretty sure it is not in America.


Again, you have avoided a response to my questions.
You have only referred to generalizations to social issues while demanding specifics from me.
Again, you only referred to alien cultures that obviously had different obstacles to over come.



> So I come back to the need for social change.


No kidding?
This seems the very first time you've addressed the concept.
It's rather obvious.
How about waving a magic wand and like they do on Star Trek, and say, make it so?

I had a hunch you'd do this, but I gave you a chance to offer your thoughts.

This is your answer:
We need social correction before there can be a solution for gun violence.

Well, I agree.

But not socialism.


----------



## Brigham

In the UK it is almost impossible to get guns. I was quite happy with that when I was younger. Now I am an old man and am thinking, what would I do if my house was broken into by a knife wielding criminal. I live quite a long way for the police to get to me on time. This scenario is not too far fetched as knife crime is now out of control. A nice little handgun under the bed would make me feel a bit more secure, but our laws do not allow it.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> ..................
> It seems that the majority of these problems were triggered by racial divisions...........
> So I come back to the need for social change.........


Your response, because I didn't focus in those posts on other issues like the religious divide in the US.
But I have mentioned our problems are complex. And not so simple as only one solves our problems with violence.



> This type of change will take a long time, but there is a need to get started.


And you backpedal.
Your original solution was the repeal of the Second Amendment, not social correction.
And you advanced it with out social correction being the factor that would make it successful.

https://forums.techguy.org/threads/...r-hillary-clinton.1233176/page-3#post-9644355

And if you had read and understood my opening post you would have realized I was addressing the need for social correction.

Let's review:
My opening post:
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/guns.1186438/



> Is this a problem of too many guns.....or more a society that's lost it's moral center?
> 
> I think it's the latter.
> 
> John.


So here's the deal.
I've asked an administrator to critique this thread and it involves your participation.
I have asked specifically you not be excluded at this time.
You've added your thought's and they wind up being the same as mine, social correction.

And yet you attacked me, personally, on your very first post with out due cause nor as it turns out, a different focus of needed correction, social correction, although yours is narrower and involves socialism.

So,if you'd like to discuss a reduction of violence in the US, do so.

A few topics to consider, but not restricted to them

Racial unrest and discrimination, causes and solutions
Religious discrimination, causes and solutions
Economic stress, causes and solutions
Negative influences of war, causes and solutions.
Political polarization, causes and solutions
How to change negative thinking, causes and solutions ( and this is really the biggest to overcome because it involves elements of all that proceeded it)

I do not accept any argument based on 'make it so' as a solution or in any way a temporary/partial solution. So if that's all you're going to post, expect a challenge.

If you aren't aware, those topics are the issues that have been at the center of our moral decay. Not any one specifically, but collectively and intertwined.
And your nation and the Swiss's have not experienced those elements to the degree the US has.
So you need to address those issues as they apply to the US and US alone.

( In my humble opinion, of course  )


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> It's an issue of cultural differences that are so extreme, you appear to have no understanding that what you want is impossible to do, in a culture you do not understand..
> When I stated earlier that you live in a dream world of your own making, I was serious.


It seems that you are taking a position that positive social change is "impossible" in America.
Please don't accuse me of not understanding your culture. I may not have a perfect understanding of everything that goes on in America, but I believe I have some idea. And does culture not vary from region to region?
Although my home in the Vancouver BC region is ranked as one of the best places in the world to live, I am sure that you did not literally mean that "I live in a dream world of my own making."


----------



## SeanLaurence

Brigham said:


> In the UK it is almost impossible to get guns. I was quite happy with that when I was younger. Now I am an old man and am thinking, what would I do if my house was broken into by a knife wielding criminal. I live quite a long way for the police to get to me on time. This scenario is not too far fetched as knife crime is now out of control. A nice little handgun under the bed would make me feel a bit more secure, but our laws do not allow it.


Would a handgun make you feel more secure? There are all kinds of statistics out there demonstrating that having that handgun is far more likely to harm you than not having it.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> It seems that you are taking a position that positive social change is "impossible" in America.
> Please don't accuse me of not understanding your culture. I may not have a perfect understanding of everything that goes on in America, but I believe I have some idea. And does culture not vary from region to region?
> Although my home in the Vancouver BC region is ranked as one of the best places in the world to live, I am sure that you did not literally mean that "I live in a dream world of my own making."


Do you want to start a discussion of addressing the reasons for violence and solutions or not, in the United States?


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> Would a handgun make you feel more secure? There are all kinds of statistics out there demonstrating that having that handgun is far more likely to harm you than not having it.


Do you want to discuss the reasons for violence and their solutions, in the United States, or not?


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> Sure.
> It's rather difficult to criticize a person that's recently passed away.
> He is critical of the NRA, and he has a point about them taking advantage of a recent Supreme Court Ruling.
> But he is only one of many to give an opinion and it appears, peers on the Court disagree.
> Of course, with the NRA losing memberships and incoming revenue from their adventure into Russian proxy funding of Trump's campaign, I suspect the NRA of today is not the powerhouse that Stevens remembered.


I wouldn't expect you to criticize Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens himself but if you wanted to disagree with his position on the 2nd amendment.
I thought I would put it out there to illustrate my position was not without merit.

I *also* think the NRA is losing membership because with Trump in office, NRA members don't feel that their rights are under threat.



> So, that young author was playing a bit with sophistry , himself.
> His interpretation has the appearance of building an simple absolute out of a more complex scenario.
> Was he wrong, eh...no, but not correct at the same time.


So you read the article closely enough to separate the opinions of the Judge and those of the writer. Good



> Would removing firearms from those intending domestic terrorism, provide a solution?
> History suggests not so much. Those intent on terrorism have many ways with out firearms.
> There was the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing that killed 168 people and injured about 500.
> The Columbine shooters had a backup plan using propane bombs, in place.
> Letter bombs were the favorite tool of the Unibomber, about 16 of them sent by him.
> Church bombings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_against_African-American_churches


You will recall that my position on your original question is that both the reduction of citizen owned guns AND social change would help to reduce gun violence in America. 
So, yes you are correct, none of these attacks would have been deterred by ANY law.
We could pick apart each one of them and discuss what motivated the attacks and what society could have done differently to allow this small group of terrorists to become as radicalized and motivated as they were.



> The US has some severe cultural/social problems to address before the concepts of violence, terrorism and murder will abate.
> So, that's what I think.


One of the things I am trying to do here is not criticize the US as a country. American's are proud of their country, and have good reason to be. Sometimes I think that patriotism blinds people from accepting that change is needed in order to improve.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> I wouldn't expect you to criticize Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens himself but if you wanted to disagree with his position on the 2nd amendment.
> I thought I would put it out there to illustrate my position was not without merit.
> 
> I *also* think the NRA is losing membership because with Trump in office, NRA members don't feel that their rights are under threat.
> 
> So you read the article closely enough to separate the opinions of the Judge and those of the writer. Good
> 
> You will recall that my position on your original question is that both the reduction of citizen owned guns AND social change would help to reduce gun violence in America.
> So, yes you are correct, none of these attacks would have been deterred by ANY law.
> We could pick apart each one of them and discuss what motivated the attacks and what society could have done differently to allow this small group of terrorists to become as radicalized and motivated as they were.
> 
> One of the things I am trying to do here is not criticize the US as a country. American's are proud of their country, and have good reason to be. Sometimes I think that patriotism blinds people from accepting that change is needed in order to improve.


I'll only ask this last time, do you have any solutions that address the violence in the US or solutions to correcting those social problems I listed or any other social problem I might not have listed that leads to violence?


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> I'll only ask this last time, do you have any solutions that address the violence in the US or solutions to correcting those social problems I listed or any other social problem I might not have listed that leads to violence?


Please be patient, I am working on it.
And please allow me that response to another member who inserted himself into our exchange. Just because his opinion is relevant to the UK, does not make it irrelevant to this discussion.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> Please be patient, I am working on it.
> And please allow me that response to another member who inserted himself into our exchange. Just because his opinion is relevant to the UK, does not make it irrelevant to this discussion.


If you want to discuss issues in the UK, I suggest you start a thread about issues in the UK because this thread is about issues in the US.

I can wait for your response in regard to this thread. But it should address this thread.


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> This is your answer:
> We need social correction before there can be a solution for gun violence.
> 
> Well, I agree.
> 
> But not socialism.


I am not sure where *you* draw the line here. If I make a proposal that the government should set up a program to do x, Would you not call that socialism?

Also, I would like to try to reduce the size of my responses. So I will attempt to only address one point at a time.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> I am not sure where *you* draw the line here. If I make a proposal that the government should set up a program to do x, Would you not call that socialism?
> 
> Also, I would like to try to reduce the size of my responses. So I will attempt to only address one point at a time.





> Would you not call that socialism?


That will depend on what you propose.

Start with proposing the solution for an issue.


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> So here's the deal.
> I've asked an administrator to critique this thread and it involves your participation.


Interesting. Do I need to do anything other than be on my best behaviour?

Let's focus on just the first topic for a start.



> *Racial unrest and discrimination, causes and solutions*
> Religious discrimination, causes and solutions
> Economic stress, causes and solutions
> Negative influences of war, causes and solutions.
> Political polarization, causes and solutions
> How to change negative thinking, causes and solutions ( and this is really the biggest to overcome because it involves elements of all that proceeded it)


So.. Racism.. Causes... Slavery? or just Fear of the other?
It seems that America's history regarding slavery still affects it today. Western slavery goes back 10,000 years to Mesopotamia. It is easy to view someone who looks different from you as "the other", and throughout human history, there has been conflict over scarce resources. That conflict will be between your community, and the other - easily identified by their skin colour. Slaves have always been used to do work, and the rise of automation relived the necessity for having slaves. At least in the Northern States. In the South, slaves were needed to pick cotton. And so there was the civil war. Ugly bit of business. I don't think the US ever got over it really. Which is odd, because everyone seems to have gotten over WWII.
So now there are a bunch of African American citizens, that are resentful for having enslaved ancestors.
And you also have a bunch of racists, that despite what their government is telling them, view African Americans as lesser human beings and "the other". 
So today there issues of African Americans being paid less than their white counterparts for the same work.
There has been a history of "Redlining" that has forced black people into specific, less desirable, areas. 
Schools in black neighbourhoods are poorly funded, because schools are funded by local property taxes, and so black children are less well educated and have little access to mingle with the upper classes. 
Blacks have a harder time getting home mortgages.

So blacks are resentful of the current overt and systemic racism inflicted on them, and so they lash out with a riot every now and then. Or they rob a liquor store because they feel entitled to the same things that ****** has. And they use a gun as a force multiplier. And it makes the news because in the capitalist news media, "If it Bleeds it leads". And everyone locks their doors.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> Interesting. Do I need to do anything other than be on my best behaviour?
> 
> Let's focus on just the first topic for a start.
> 
> So.. Racism.. Causes... Slavery? or just Fear of the other?
> It seems that America's history regarding slavery still affects it today. Western slavery goes back 10,000 years to Mesopotamia. It is easy to view someone who looks different from you as "the other", and throughout human history, there has been conflict over scarce resources. That conflict will be between your community, and the other - easily identified by their skin colour. Slaves have always been used to do work, and the rise of automation relived the necessity for having slaves. At least in the Northern States. In the South, slaves were needed to pick cotton. And so there was the civil war. Ugly bit of business. I don't think the US ever got over it really. Which is odd, because everyone seems to have gotten over WWII.
> So now there are a bunch of African American citizens, that are resentful for having enslaved ancestors.
> And you also have a bunch of racists, that despite what their government is telling them, view African Americans as lesser human beings and "the other".
> So today there issues of African Americans being paid less than their white counterparts for the same work.
> There has been a history of "Redlining" that has forced black people into specific, less desirable, areas.
> Schools in black neighbourhoods are poorly funded, because schools are funded by local property taxes, and so black children are less well educated and have little access to mingle with the upper classes.
> Blacks have a harder time getting home mortgages.
> 
> So blacks are resentful of the current overt and systemic racism inflicted on them, and so they lash out with a riot every now and then. Or they rob a liquor store because they feel entitled to the same things that ****** has. And they use a gun as a force multiplier. And it makes the news because in the capitalist news media, "If it Bleeds it leads". And everyone locks their doors.


Where is the solution?


----------



## SeanLaurence

A solution is much harder. please be patient for part 2. I actually have work to do. I am self employed and participate on this board when time allows or when I am procrastinating.
Feel free to comment on what I have written so far. Anything you would like to add?
Did you know it is election day in Canada today? how many party leaders can you name off the top of your head?


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> A solution is much harder. please be patient for part 2. I actually have work to do. I am self employed and participate on this board when time allows or when I am procrastinating.
> Feel free to comment on what I have written so far. Anything you would like to add?
> Did you know it is election day in Canada today? how many party leaders can you name off the top of your head?


Most people are aware of the issue and I posted only a small intensity of it.

If you already know of a solution, simply state so and post it.


----------



## Brigham

SeanLaurence said:


> Would a handgun make you feel more secure? There are all kinds of statistics out there demonstrating that having that handgun is far more likely to harm you than not having it.


There are probably statistics that say the opposite as well. I'm talking about my feelings.


----------



## Johnny b

Sean has a difficult task ahead.
Deriving social remedies for negative human traits is no easy task and takes time.
I would appreciate future posts wait on Sean's reply for a solution to firearm violence so that it doesn't create a distraction from his focus on a difficult problem.
It will be interesting to read how he's solved racism.

Thank you.


----------



## SeanLaurence

To solve the difficult problem of racism in America...
Step one: Establish a consensus among electoral voters that racism is a problem that* needs to be* and *can be* solved.
The election of DT demonstrates that political will did not sufficiently exist in Nov of 2016 to do anything about the issue.

It should follow, that once that consensus is established, a government that is prepared to tackle the problem will be elected into office and policy adjustments can be made etc.

The presidency of Barack Obama did not appear to pro-actively do much to combat racism:
https://journals.openedition.org/ejpap/825 
"As the first African American president, he has to show the black community that he has their social, political, and economic interests on his public policy agenda. On the other hand, he cannot appear to be to overtly pro-black without bruising white racial sensibilities. In order to walk this fine line, President Obama has taken a colorblind approach to public policies."

I cannot think of any policy that has been advanced under Donald Trump that even pretends to address the issue.

If DT is re-elected, then it will be another 4 years before there is any change is social policy in this regard.
Biden: I would expect to maintain Obama policies.
Warren: Has a plan for that 
Sanders: Will have a socialist plan for that (I have no idea)
Buttigieg: I have hope for
Harris: May have to step back from the issue the same way that Obama did.

So then can I address what we can do as individuals?
cinch: STOP BEING A RACISIST!

If you are an employer, then pay your minority employees as well as anyone else.
Think about doing some affirmative action hiring. - If two candidates walk in with similar credentials, hire the minority as long as the job can still get done.
If you in a mixed race gathering, talk to everyone equally.

The media can select and present their stories while being mindful of the issue. Since most newsrooms are run as a business, It makes sense that stories are selected and written to attract readers. Sometimes the choices made are counterproductive to social harmony.

The entertainment industry can, and I think does, take steps as well.
I believe that "The Cosby Show" went a long way to advance racial harmony by portraying a normal, relate-able upper middle class black family. It is a shame that subsequent events have undermined that message.

I attempted to use Google to find some solutions to solving racism, and didn't come up with much.
The Alberta government has set up an anti racism commission, and offers money for anti racisim programs. 
Pretty weak if you ask me.

I will think some more about things that government can do and post later.

Nancy Regan is in my head: "Just say no" - need to do better than that.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> To solve the difficult problem of racism in America...
> Step one: Establish a consensus among electoral voters that racism is a problem that* needs to be* and *can be* solved.
> ..................
> 
> It should follow, that once that consensus is established, a government that is prepared to tackle the problem will be elected into office and policy adjustments can be made etc.
> 
> ......................................
> 
> .....................
> 
> ...............................
> So then can I address what we can do as individuals?
> .................................





> Step one: Establish a consensus among electoral voters


I agree that's a good first step, but how?
The 'how' would be one of the first steps and then the method of convincing all the voters if racism is to be eradicated or just mollified for appearances?
Is this merely a legislative action where racism will still exist because a minority disagree?

And there is a religious matter, while not great, significant because it is derived from the Old Testament as a rationalization for the concept of slavery, in this particular case, of black people.
While reasonable people disagree as to their interpretation, I disagree and you probably disagree also, their religious belief has existed for almost 2000 years and maybe longer.
That would be in Genesis 9: 20-27 as I remember. The Curse of Ham.
So now, racism has a biblical connection ( rational or not ) that exists.
And now it's complicated.
How do you intend to legislate religious beliefs?


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> I agree that's a good first step, but how?
> The 'how' would be one of the first steps


"How" is through messaging / education / promotion. I wanted to use the word propaganda here, but there is an element of dishonesty implied in the term that makes it unsuitable.
I would think the question of Who is to promote an anti-racist agenda would be asked first. 
I would suggest that failing the current administration's reluctance to address the issue, then messages will need to be spread by community leaders, religious leaders, political candidates and high profile people in general. There can be many types of messages, I believe in a soft sell.



> and then the method of convincing all the voters if racism is to be eradicated or just mollified for appearances?


That appears that you are offering a binary choice here. The goal can be set to reduce the amount of racism. Levels of racism seem to have been reduced substantially over the past few generations, but there is still a ways to go. I believe there is a benefit to having hidden racism in place of overt racism. The more racism we witness, the more it becomes normalized and accepted. Keeping it hidden, helps to de-normalize the behaviour.



> Is this merely a legislative action where racism will still exist because a minority disagree?


You can't directly legislate against racism. In Canada, we do criminalize hate speech, so if you want to spread racism, you are going to have a hard time. I know that idea is on a collision course with your 1st amendment, but I am sure you understand that there are limits to free speech, even in America. The poor showing of Jagmeet Singh's NDP party in our election last night suggests that racism is alive and well in Canada.



> And there is a religious matter, while not great, significant because it is derived from the Old Testament as a rationalization for the concept of slavery, in this particular case, of black people.
> While reasonable people disagree as to their interpretation, I disagree and you probably disagree also, their religious belief has existed for almost 2000 years and maybe longer.
> That would be in Genesis 9: 20-27 as I remember. The Curse of Ham.
> So now, racism has a biblical connection ( rational or not ) that exists.


My understanding is that most christian religions teach the new testament over the old. 
I don't think much of religion, and when I do, I don't have much good to say about it.
Are there really people / religions out there that use old biblical verses to justify the enslavement of black people?



> How do you intend to legislate religious beliefs?


As above, I did not think it was a problem. If it is, however, then perhaps that could be tried under anti hate-speech legislation.

Without regard to the issue at hand, I would like to see religious institutions taxed, but that is a topic for another board.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> ..................
> 
> So then can I address what we can do as individuals?
> cinch: STOP BEING A RACISIST!
> ..............
> 
> .


I'm back.

Again, how are you going to accomplish that goal?



> If you are an employer, then pay your minority employees as well as anyone else.


There are already Federal laws on that.

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-epa.cfm



> The right of employees to be free from discrimination in their compensation is protected under several federal laws, including the following enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
> 
> ................................
> Title VII, ADEA, and ADA
> 
> Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA prohibit compensation discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability.


And yet, it happens. So what is the solution?
The 'how'?
How can all employers be convinced to do the 'right thing'?
Legislation helps, but it doesn't guarantee a solution for institutional racism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism


> Institutional racism (also known as systemic racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions. It is reflected in disparities regarding wealth, income, criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power and education, among other factors.
> 
> The term "institutional racism" was coined and first used in 1967 by Stokely Carmichael (later known as Kwame Ture) and Charles V. Hamilton in Black Power: The Politics of Liberation.[1] Carmichael and Hamilton wrote that while individual racism is often identifiable because of its overt nature, institutional racism is less perceptible because of its "less overt, far more subtle" nature. Institutional racism "originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society, and thus receives far less public condemnation than [individual racism]"


Racism ( institutional racism in this case ) is also a cultural phenomena that creeps through out a society and not as easy to address with legislation as individual racism is more obvious.

Do you have one solution for racism, or will you need several to address the varying aspects of racism?
The 'how' is obviously a problem.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> "How" is through messaging / education / promotion. ....................


That is the 'means' what is the 'message'?
And how do you determine what message is appropriate for the varying instances of racism?


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> .
> 
> That appears that you are offering a binary choice here. The goal can be set to reduce the amount of racism. .....................


Wait.....are you suggesting there is a level of racism that is acceptable, or there is a level beyond which a certain minority of the citizenry can not be convinced to abandon their hatreds?

Either way, this seems a relative argument. Not a solution.

You spoke to a position originally of solutions.....ie. to achieve a society where there was no need for self defense.
So, is your argument one of self defense being a concept of relative safety, or a solution to the problems that cause violence?


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> .............
> 
> You can't directly legislate against racism. ..............


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_African-American_legislation#Bills_signed_into_law

I think most Americans would disagree with you, Sean.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> .............
> My understanding is that most christian religions teach the new testament over the old.
> ......................


Sean.
That isn't about what you or I believe.
It's what a sect of fundamentalists believe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

Most Christians do disagree. But not all. 
And this is a difference of religious beliefs you need to contend with when advancing a solution, or just ignore the issue.

Are you now arguing to ignore what is inconvenient to address?

edit:


> As above, I did not think it was a problem. If it is, however, then perhaps that could be tried under anti hate-speech legislation.


Interesting.
You've now included in your 'solution' a religious belief being illegal 'hate speech'.

I told you, things can get complicated.

How would you construct a law that makes it illegal to just believe something?


----------



## SeanLaurence

7 minutes for your reply - you are fast.


Johnny b said:


> I'm back.
> Again, how are you going to accomplish that goal? (cinch: STOP BEING A RACISIST!)


I was referring to what an individual can do on an individual basis. Without outside interference. It is a personal choice to be a racist. Sometimes it is not so much a choice, but a lack of self awareness that what you are doing or saying is racist.



> There are already Federal laws on that. https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-epa.cfm And yet, it happens. So what is the solution?


Sounds like the laws need to be enforced. Do you know why they are not?



> How can all employers be convinced to do the 'right thing'?


It is difficult. If you get heavy handed with enforcement, you may get other consequences. Unions are an option. I would like to see a move towards more unionization in general. I acknowledge that sometimes there is a problem of corruption within unions, but that is not a union problem, it is a corruption problem.



> Legislation helps, but it doesn't guarantee a solution for institutional racism.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism


We need to keep breaking the problems down into smaller chunks and find solutions, one by one.
For instance, on the issue of home mortgages, perhaps banks need to apply strict rules when deciding to approve a mortgage application or not. And there can be an agency to audit the results to ensure that the rules were applied fairly.



> Racism ( institutional racism in this case ) is also a cultural phenomena that creeps through out a society and not as easy to address with legislation as individual racism is more obvious.


I think you rushed that thought.
Institutional racism is not easy to address because it is subtle, and hard to detect.
Individual racism is not easy to address because citizens have the right to personal liberty and you cannot legislate what someone thinks.



> Do you have one solution for racism, or will you need several to address the varying aspects of racism?
> The 'how' is obviously a problem.


We can agree that racism is complex and there is no one solution. There are ways to move forward to reduce the levels of racism in any community.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> ...........................
> 
> I attempted to use Google to find some solutions to solving racism, and didn't come up with much.
> 
> .......


So....you haven't thought about this issue very much in the past?

Personally, I think debating is more fruitful when participants base debate on their own ideas rather than google searches and back up their positions if need be with Google.

If you'd like to take some time to think and ponder the problems we face in the US, I wouldn't be opposed. But I'd appreciate it if this thread stayed on track with it's intent.
A general discussion of our moral issues and how they relate to violence and self defense issues/needs.


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> That is the 'means' what is the 'message'?
> And how do you determine what message is appropriate for the varying instances of racism?


I provided the example of the Cosby Show as a form of an anti-racism message.
There are a broad number of ways you can demonstrate a healthy pluralistic society. Providing examples is beyond the scope of this discussion IMO.


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_African-American_legislation#Bills_signed_into_law
> 
> I think most Americans would disagree with you, Sean.


The key word here would be "directly" and let me add the words "overt individual" to qualify "racism" so that I may be clearer.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> 7 minutes for your reply - you are fast.
> 
> .......


Your formatting is off.

My reply was only as quick as I can type and since I'm on a Linux platform. I no longer use voice recognition.

I'm familiar with these topics.
There are no easy solutions and probably no solution other than improving the issue of racism as long as hate is an uncontrollable emotion from a legal pov.


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> Sean.
> That isn't about what you or I believe.
> It's what a sect of fundamentalists believe.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham
> Most Christians do disagree. But not all.
> And this is a difference of religious beliefs you need to contend with when advancing a solution, or just ignore the issue.
> Are you now arguing to ignore what is inconvenient to address?
> edit:
> Interesting.
> You've now included in your 'solution' a religious belief being illegal 'hate speech'.
> I told you, things can get complicated.
> How would you construct a law that makes it illegal to just believe something?


You said here that not "most" Christians hold this belief, so perhaps ignoring it is an option.
and/or
Perhaps you are not clear on how hate speech laws work. 
Individuals can still believe what they want, as it is impossible to legislate that, but as soon as someone spreads the hateful word, the law takes effect. Freedom of religion is not an absolute right in the USA, as it is a part of the first amendment, which is also not absolute.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> .................
> 
> I think you rushed that thought.
> Institutional racism is not easy to address because it is subtle, and hard to detect.
> Individual racism is not easy to address because citizens have the right to personal liberty and you cannot legislate what someone thinks.
> ....................


Your logic is backwards on individual racism. it's easier to address because it is more obvious. And from that aspect, there are many Federal as State laws that will apply.

Institutional racism was discussed in this forum several months ago. So my reply wasn't rushed, I'm familiar with the topic.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> You said here that not "most" Christians hold this belief, so perhaps ignoring it is an option.
> and/or
> Perhaps you are not clear on how hate speech laws work.
> Individuals can still believe what they want, as it is impossible to legislate that, but as soon as someone spreads the hateful word, the law takes effect. Freedom of religion is not an absolute right in the USA, as it is a part of the first amendment, which is also not absolute.


A belief isn't a form of speech.
Our thought processes are not at risk in the USA.


----------



## Johnny b

BTW, the US has a separation of Church and State.
The State can not force acceptance of specific religious beliefs nor denial of them.


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> So....you haven't thought about this issue very much in the past?


I am not so arrogant as to think my own thoughts on any topic are superior to everyone else's.
And you may be correct, I have not spent a good deal of time thinking about racism in america.



> Personally, I think debating is more fruitful when participants base debate on their own ideas rather than google searches and back up their positions if need be with Google.


I reserve the right to pick and choose the ideas that I feel have merit.



> If you'd like to take some time to think and ponder the problems we face in the US, I wouldn't be opposed. But I'd appreciate it if this thread stayed on track with it's intent.
> A general discussion of our moral issues and how they relate to violence and self defence issues/needs.


Forgive me, I thought you had opened up the discussion on to a broad range of topics in furtherance of improving the morality in America.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> I provided the example of the Cosby Show as a form of an anti-racism message.
> There are a broad number of ways you can demonstrate a healthy pluralistic society. Providing examples is beyond the scope of this discussion IMO.


Indeed, many ways. So?
But you have to make/force the populace, all the populace to adhere to watching and accepting those lessons.
How can you legislate such a scenario?

I never watched any more than 20 minutes of Cosby's show and determined he was a fake, and look what happened to him personally.
He didn't embrace the lessons he was fronting when it came to morality, abusing people, women that he sexually took advantage of.
So what did Cosby really teach the public about morality?

Nothing good and it only fed the cynics.



> Providing examples is beyond the scope of this discussion IMO


Agreed.
I would have picked Mr Rodgers over Cosby


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> The key word here would be "directly" and let me add the words "overt individual" to qualify "racism" so that I may be clearer.


Those laws are 'direct' in every sense of the term.
Adding qualifications after the fact does little to change their impact.


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> BTW, the US has a separation of Church and State.
> The State can not force acceptance of specific religious beliefs nor denial of them.


I am well aware.
What the US does not have is any regulation prohibiting hate speech. 
I am suggesting that maybe it should. After all, there are some other reasonable limits put on the 1st amendment.
And I propose that there not be an exception made for Religious speech.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> I am not so arrogant as to think my own thoughts on any topic are superior to everyone else's.
> And you may be correct, I have not spent a good deal of time thinking about racism in america.
> 
> I reserve the right to pick and choose the ideas that I feel have merit.
> 
> Forgive me, I thought you had opened up the discussion on to a broad range of topics in furtherance of improving the morality in America.


I'll ask again, would you like some extra time to ponder our problems with racism in the US?
You don't seem familiar with them if you need to be depending on google for advice.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> I am well aware.
> What the US does not have is any regulation prohibiting hate speech.
> I am suggesting that maybe it should. After all, there are some other reasonable limits put on the 1st amendment.
> And I propose that there not be an exception made for Religious speech.


A belief is a thought process.
I remember posting you'd be at odds with religious factions.

And here you are trying to legislate religion.
I don't think you can do it legally ( I know you can not ) nor from a practical pov in the US


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> But you have to make/force the populace, all the populace to adhere to watching and accepting those lessons.
> How can you legislate such a scenario?


I had not even gotten to the part where we are talking about government legislation yet. 
The idea is that "influencers" can decide, individually, to influence for the cause.



> I never watched any more than 20 minutes of Cosby's show and determined he was a fake, and look what happened to him personally.
> He didn't embrace the lessons he was fronting when it came to morality, abusing people, women that he sexually took advantage of.
> So what did Cosby really teach the public about morality?
> Nothing good and it only fed the cynics.


You are not acknowledging that you understood the point I was attempting to make with my example.



> I would have picked Mr Rodgers over Cosby


Fair enough, I didn't watch much of Fred. I imagine that he did advocate against racism.
I would add in Sesame street.
The idea is to not teach racism, and starting young helps.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> I had not even gotten to the part where we are talking about government legislation yet. .............


Well, you have inferred at times both beliefs and 'the spoken word' ( in religious context) needs to be legislated, but I don't see how since that is illegal in the US, itself.

Solutions are what you seemed to have suggested, but they need to be legal solutions and .....do-able.

I'm pointing out how difficult that really is.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> ..........
> 
> You are not acknowledging that you understood the point I was attempting to make with my example.
> ...................


It was a bad example.
So there is an issue of what the example should be and the character of who is promoting it.

And yet you posted it wasn't about examples and I agreed to placate you, little realizing at the moment how wrong I was.
It's all about the example otherwise it's more or less a propaganda piece.
Credibility .

So, that solution needs some work.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> I.....
> 
> Fair enough, I didn't watch much of Fred. I imagine that he did advocate against racism.
> I would add in Sesame street.
> The idea is to not teach racism, and starting young helps.


:up:


----------



## Johnny b

Sean.....can emotions , like hatred, even be legislated?


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> Sean.....can emotions , like hatred, even be legislated?


Nothing in a person's mind be that racism or emotions can be legislated. The best that can be done is appeal to reason.

And I must apologize again. when I said "I am not so arrogant as to think my own thoughts on any topic are superior to everyone else's." I was referring only to myself, but upon re-reading it, and noticing your retorts are getting more personal, I can see how it would *imply *that I see you as being arrogant. That was not my intent.

How about if I re-state:
I find that I can inform myself with the writings of those who have come before me.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> .............
> The idea is that "influencers" can decide, individually, to influence for the cause.
> 
> ...............................


The cause is good, I agree.

But what kind of timelines would you expect for a satisfactory solution?

Individual racism is the easiest to observe and the easiest to legislate.
I'm pointing out that even with all the laws against racism in the US at the moment, it still occurs on an individual basis.

So how can the Individual racism problem be approached more efficiently? 
Specifically, what legislation ( in legal terms of course and beyond just intent.... and addressing specifics) could be crafted to accomplish an end to individual racism?

What kind of timeline do you think it would take, even with a 'Cosby' promotion in effect, and the perfect legislation, to bring about an end to Individual racism? Decades? Centuries?

As to institutional racism, since it's a silent form of racism that stays buried in culture, the concept of a legislated solution seems less effective and an ongoing campaign of 'examples' a slow process of correction, if ever more than a partial solution.
How many generations would it take to have an impact, then to approach a maximum effect?

It's been about 165 years since the Civil War and racism still exists.
Will it end, even with the best efforts, in my life time? In your life time?

This is not an argument to not try, it's a search for the reality of such endeavors.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> Nothing in a person's mind be that racism or emotions can be legislated. The best that can be done is appeal to reason.
> ..................


That does indeed seem to be the major problem to address.

But, what's the solution and how long will it take to get reasonable results?

How long before racism is no longer an issue to contend with in relation to violence?

I wish it wasn't a problem.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> .................
> 
> How about if I re-state:
> I find that I can inform myself with the writings of those who have come before me.


Doesn't matter to me. If you want more time, take it. This problem won't be solved any time soon and you might just find that solution.


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> That does indeed seem to be the major problem to address.
> But, what's the solution and how long will it take to get reasonable results?
> How long before racism is no longer an issue to contend with in relation to violence?
> I wish it wasn't a problem.


Well who knows how long it will take. It kinda depends on the effort that is put into it. With WWII or Apollo program effort, maybe within 10 years. With Climate change effort, maybe never (look who's the cynic now)

A problem that I see as particularly vexing is the separation of the two populations. If communities are composed of people of different races, then that should help to reduce racism. But how do you get there from here? You can't force people to move. The idea of busing black students to white schools was always a half baked compromise. Trying to create a mix in established communities will be exponentially harder.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> Well who knows how long it will take. It kinda depends on the effort that is put into it. With WWII or Apollo program effort, maybe within 10 years. With Climate change effort, maybe never (look who's the cynic now)
> ............................


With material problems there is no intelligence behind their actions.
Not a good analogy, imo.

Better analogy....the late 1920's, the NAZI faction in Germany eventually led it into a world war.
We have neo-Nazis in the US as hate groups and it's almost a century later.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> .................
> 
> A problem that I see as particularly vexing is the separation of the two populations. If communities are composed of people of different races, then that should help to reduce racism. But how do you get there from here? You can't force people to move. The idea of busing black students to white schools was always a half baked compromise. Trying to create a mix in established communities will be exponentially harder.


I don't support segregation and it is illegal in the US

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

As far as busing, imo the schools should have been of equal quality to begin with.
Largely it was a a result of defacto segregation because of 'white flight' out of the inner cities leaving the school systems in financial difficulty and poor management.
Dayton was so bad at one time the State almost de-certified their school system because of a lack of scolastic ability and threatened to take it over .
Busing was not a good compromise.


----------



## Johnny b

Sean, so far the actions you've mentioned are not a solution that would have an impact that would alleviate concerns for self defense in the near future.
For those suffering the effects of racism nor those imposing it.

More issues of racism. It's more than a problem of just 'White vs Black'.
My posts in Civilized Debate are not open for for viewing, but one of my comments during the second Iraq war that GW Bush started, was ....he was generating a circle of hatred. He ordered the invasion of a non participant in a terrorist war started by Al Qaeda, exposing and leveraging the hatred of Muslims..... that was a supportive psychological force, blindly backing him after 9/11.
That response and emotion was returned by the people of that area of the world and ISIS grew from a power vacuum that Saddam left after being eliminated. Greater hatred was returned and those hatreds continue to exist as Trump ( a known racist since at least 1973 from a Federal Court decision concerning his racist business practices) left our allies ( from the fight against ISIS ), the Kurds, to fend for themselves against Turkish aggression in a complex political scenario using bogus logic they didn't help us during WWII. There was no Kurd nation at that time.

Again, religion reared it's ugly head along with racial hatreds.
The hatred of Muslims in general during that Iraq invasion definitely had religious overtones with racism expressed in derogatory verbiage.
It was even expressed in our debates.
While I don't fear people of Muslim ethnicity in my environment, racial hatred of them involves an acceptance of violence that also needs to be addressed. 
Religious discrimination has existed since before Moses, who, if you read the Bible, was also a cruel war lord. (Yep, we have briefly discussed that in this forum )
It's amazing what the general public believes from Hollywood movies.

So, there is that to add to this discussion.
But there is more going on.
And there are other religious connections to consider, also.

As I just mentioned, Trump is a racist. He has used and is still using draconian measures concerning our immigration problems. Non white Hispanic people from South and Central America seeking sanctuary ( specifically ) are being abused as an obvious deterrent to illegal immigration.
While stumping for the Presidency, Trump promised the Christian evangelical communities, favoritisms as a means of voter support.
In return, his actions have been rationalized by evangelicals , now considering him an Emissary of God completing God's work. 
Obviously intense institutionalized racism and it's within religious groups that are supposed to reject those attributes through the teachings and belief in Jesus Christ.
An estimated 35 to 40 percent of our voters support Trump. This problem also goes deep into our culture.

This is no small problem. 


Your time lines for success are speculative at best.

Humanity should initiate them now ( solutions). 
But in regards to violence and hatred occurring now, because of the nature of this debate, your argument that eliminates a means of self defense..... requires a solution that is more timely.
I do not think 10 years is realistic.
Racism and the hate that drives it, are a problem that currently occurs in almost all societies with mixed ethnicity and religions. It has existed before Jesus Christ, 2000 years ago. Both come from human emotions.

You have posted there may not be a solution. I posted the same much earlier.

Keep looking for a solution, but one that provides a satisfactory response for the nature of this thread.....the problems of gun control in relation to morality and self defense.
That is what this thread was intended to address.

And you've only addressed limited aspects of discrimination up to this point.
There is more.


----------



## SeanLaurence

John,
Most of what you have written I can agree with. 
I maintain that the decision to own a gun for self defense is one made with emotion and not logic. Obviously, owning long guns and storing them in a locked gun cabinet, separately from the ammunition is far safer then leaving a loaded handgun on your coffee table, but individuals are generally safer without having any guns at all.
Statistically, hardly any criminal is thwarted by a "good guy with a gun". 
I have heard it argued that the mere presence of guns is a deterrent. The example I was given is that in Texas there are hardly any home break-ins because criminals feel they are likely to be shot. Frankly I don't buy that, but that is a difficult assertion to prove either way.

I had not heard that Moses was a cruel war lord.

I would suggest that the sour relationship between Christians and Muslims goes back at least as far as the crusades, where Christians were the aggressors.

My time line was very speculative.

You did not comment on the idea that hate speech should be regulated and churches should not be excluded from that regulation. Just like free speech is not absolute, freedom of religion should not be absolute either. How does the state deal with destructive cults that call themselves religions?


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> John,
> Most of what you have written I can agree with.
> I maintain that the decision to own a gun for self defense is one made with emotion and not logic. Obviously, owning long guns and storing them in a locked gun cabinet, separately from the ammunition is far safer then leaving a loaded handgun on your coffee table, but individuals are generally safer without having any guns at all.
> Statistically, hardly any criminal is thwarted by a "good guy with a gun".
> I have heard it argued that the mere presence of guns is a deterrent. The example I was given is that in Texas there are hardly any home break-ins because criminals feel they are likely to be shot. Frankly I don't buy that, but that is a difficult assertion to prove either way.
> 
> I had not heard that Moses was a cruel war lord.
> 
> I would suggest that the sour relationship between Christians and Muslims goes back at least as far as the crusades, where Christians were the aggressors.
> 
> My time line was very speculative.
> 
> You did not comment on the idea that hate speech should be regulated and churches should not be excluded from that regulation. Just like free speech is not absolute, freedom of religion should not be absolute either. How does the state deal with destructive cults that call themselves religions?





> I maintain that the decision to own a gun for self defense is one made with emotion and not logic.


You have that opinion because you live in a different environment, Sean.



> Obviously, owning long guns and storing them in a locked gun cabinet, separately from the ammunition is far safer then leaving a loaded handgun on your coffee table


So is a lot of other means of storing a weapon. But this thread isn't about how a person stores a weapon, it's about why he/she has a need for one.
None of mine are in plain view and there are no children in my residence.
But I have easy access to any one of them in an emergency.



> Statistically, hardly any criminal is thwarted by a "good guy with a gun".


There are no good statistics on that particular claim, for or against.
But, logically, in cases of defending a home during an intrusion, an armed homeowner has a defense to use if a firearm is present versus a homeowner that has no weapon.



> You did not comment on the idea that hate speech should be regulated and churches should not be excluded from that regulation.


I commented.
There is a separation of Church and State in the US.
It's illegal for the government to involve themselves in regulating religious beliefs or the expression of their religious beliefs.

And there are laws that do control speech, that are intended to initiate violence or terrorism.
It's illegal to shout 'fire' in a public place with out there being an emergency.

It's not illegal for a person to conduct a conversation with another involving hate, or denying events like the Holocaust.

Yes there are lines people cross in the attempt to blur distinctions.
In that regard, it's been decided a draconian response is more detrimental to a free society than the damage done. Not perfect, but better than filling up the prisons with not much more than a lot of angry people, making the situation worse.



> How does the state deal with destructive cults that call themselves religions?


Mostly depends on the politics and political party of the day.
B Clinton tried enforcement with the Branch Davidians ( Waco ) and it was a disaster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_Davidians

I can't give you a definite answer other than if it looks like a dangerous cult, it's probably being watched by the authorities waiting to arrest if criminal activities occur. And merely speaking their beliefs is going to be overlooked.
Some even push the point to physical actions along with what you and i would consider hate speech that represent their beliefs and get away with it arguing the right to religious freedom. One of the worst:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

Making laws concerning 'dangerous religion' is a sure fire way for a politician to either be recalled or lose the next election.
This is the US and that ....just is the way it is.
Religion plays a large role in politics.


----------



## Johnny b

Sean, if you've been reading the latest news going on in the US, Trump's lawyers have argued Trump can kill ( contextually--> murder ) a civilian any where in the US he wants to and there's nothing we can do about it while he's President.

And there is support for that position.

I haven't seen that in your society. Did I miss something of that nature?

Do you see the monumental effort and time it's going to take to change minds on that alone?
Our leader is a proponent of violence and has a significant portion of our society backing him.


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> Sean, if you've been reading the latest news going on in the US, Trump's lawyers have argued Trump can kill ( contextually--> murder ) a civilian any where in the US he wants to and there's nothing we can do about it while he's President.
> 
> And there is support for that position.
> 
> I haven't seen that in your society. Did I miss something of that nature?
> 
> Do you see the monumental effort and time it's going to take to change minds on that alone?
> Our leader is a proponent of violence and has a significant portion of our society backing him.


It should be a quiet day in the impeachment proceedings with representatives paying their respects to Elijah Cummings,
Support from the far right not withstanding, I don't think that Trump's lawyers are going to get far with that line of reasoning in the courts.
I heard it said that long before his election that Trump seldom listened to his lawyers and often stiffed them. So you have to wonder about the quality of representation he is getting.
Rudy will probably end up in jail.

I am wondering about Pence. I wonder if he is crooked, or, if he is just keeping his head down so that he will not be impeached along with Trump.
Back in the days of Watergate, VP Agnew resigned over unrelated matters before Nixon did, so Ford was ready to take the reigns. 
Will Pelosi attempt a double impeachment and put herself in? That would be WAY to risky.
So what is her play? If Trump goes first, Pence will likely pardon just like Ford did for Nixon. 
If Pence is removed first, Who would replace him? I doubt that Trump would install anyone of Ford's integrity. So we are still looking at a pardon for Trump.

I think Trump wants to be impeached because the alternative is criminal charges once the clock runs out and a Democrat is in office.

If the economy turned sour, I imagine that much of Trumps support would evaporate. I don't wan't a depression though.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> It should be a quiet day in the impeachment proceedings with representatives paying their respects to Elijah Cummings,
> Support from the far right not withstanding, I don't think that Trump's lawyers are going to get far with that line of reasoning in the courts.
> I heard it said that long before his election that Trump seldom listened to his lawyers and often stiffed them. So you have to wonder about the quality of representation he is getting.
> Rudy will probably end up in jail.
> 
> I am wondering about Pence. I wonder if he is crooked, or, if he is just keeping his head down so that he will not be impeached along with Trump.
> Back in the days of Watergate, VP Agnew resigned over unrelated matters before Nixon did, so Ford was ready to take the reigns.
> Will Pelosi attempt a double impeachment and put herself in? That would be WAY to risky.
> So what is her play? If Trump goes first, Pence will likely pardon just like Ford did for Nixon.
> If Pence is removed first, Who would replace him? I doubt that Trump would install anyone of Ford's integrity. So we are still looking at a pardon for Trump.
> 
> I think Trump wants to be impeached because the alternative is criminal charges once the clock runs out and a Democrat is in office.
> 
> If the economy turned sour, I imagine that much of Trumps support would evaporate. I don't wan't a depression though.


Time will tell ......and the problem our society faces is that Trump is desperate and willing to use the influence of threats and violence. And he still has a lot of support.


----------



## Johnny b

So...Sean?
How's your google magic working out?
Any luck finding finding a knowledgeable source with a timely solution to racial violence in the US?

Or can we agree it's not likely to happen within my lifetime in the US
And remember, I'm older than you are.
So I do need you to hurry it up


----------



## SeanLaurence

I hope that you might see some noticeable progress in your lifetime.

If the US had a more authoritarian government, then the task would be easier, but alas that pesky democracy mires any attempt at change, whether it be positive or negative.

But seriously,
We can talk about there being flaws in the constitution, and the benefits that could be had with constitutional reform.
My view is that with the vague wording, gun owners and religious groups feel they have unassailable rights to do what ever they like without regard for the rights of others.

These folk believe that a coalition of states can be used to make constitutional amendments to make up for Washington gridlock.
https://www.amconfdn.org


----------



## SeanLaurence

http://www.legalanthology.ch/americ...he-swiss-constitution-of-1848-james-h-hutson/

The text at hand comments the trials of tribulations of Switzerland in 1803 , in 1813 and the later steps of 1815 arguing that the revolution in Paris that year had encouraged Swiss liberals to oust, the aristocratic leadership. Many of the important Cantons established new governments that were based, according to Hutson, on a model of Jacksonian Democracy In the United States of popular sovereignty.
Hutson notes the uneven length of the constitutional document and cites Rappard again that it was drafted as a "conscious and deliberate imitation of American model".
As to federalism, the Swiss constitution of 1848, like the American constitution of 1787, converted a league of sovereign states into a federal state, in which power was divided between different levels of government. Hutson notes differences in the making of the seperation of powers, the executive branch as the Swiss Federal Tribunal and finally as regards the power given to the central government.

The text ends: "Despite these differences - and it would be possible to mention more - the important fact to remember in assessing the ties between the Sister Republics is that the major institutional features of the Swiss Constitution of 1848 - bicameralism and federalism - were copied from the American Constitution of 1787. As a Swiss scholar has recently asserted, one "could almost speak of a plagiary. " - a citation of an unpublished paper "The United States Constitution and Switzerland"of Jean-Francois Aubert, one of the most learned representatives of Swiss constitutional law, who was American trained as well.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> I hope that you might see some noticeable progress in your lifetime.
> 
> If the US had a more authoritarian government, then the task would be easier, but alas that pesky democracy mires any attempt at change, whether it be positive or negative.
> 
> But seriously,
> We can talk about there being flaws in the constitution, and the benefits that could be had with constitutional reform.
> My view is that with the vague wording, gun owners and religious groups feel they have unassailable rights to do what ever they like without regard for the rights of others.
> 
> These folk believe that a coalition of states can be used to make constitutional amendments to make up for Washington gridlock.
> https://www.amconfdn.org





> I hope that you might see some noticeable progress in your lifetime.


Everyone that has posted in this thread seems to want to see it.
But, addressing reality, it's not happening at any great pace and doesn't look like the need for home/personal defense will decline enough with in this century to make a difference.

And currently, we have a President that claims he can kill anyone in the US, even you on a visit, and there's absolutely nothing the courts can do about it.
And if you defend yourself....well....that's not going to go well either.

So you see, with attitudes like that, the NRA, and the criminal's ability to acquire firearms illegally, even back alley and potential black market scenarios, you aren't really addressing the problems in my society other than projecting a want to 'make it so'.

It's just not that easy.
And we've only discussed the differences between Canada and the US in regards to racism that has plagued mankind since civilization became a concept to embrace.
There is a lot more that drives violence.



> These folk believe that a coalition of states can be used to make constitutional amendments to make up for Washington gridlock.


I read it.
I don't see anything about re-writing the Constitution to eliminate existing Rights.
And I should point out, from what was implied ... your statement of States making Constitutional Amendments at the Federal level, there was a Civil War over the creation of a Confederacy of States only responsible unto them selves. 
So there could be violent opposition again for what you seem to be considering.
Being a Republican, myself, I would be opposed to reconsidering a 'States Rights' movement.
The ones you are mollifying used to be called Dixiecrats, but over time have come under the banner of the GOP....just like neo-cons, Tea partiers and Libertarians have.
The GOP is quite the radicalist of the radical now days and the Constitution is at risk because of them. Socialists too over in the Democrat Party, just different angles.

This thread was intended to discuss guns and morality with out violating Constitutional Rights, Sean
I'm still not seeing what you post any more than an appeal to revoke those rights.



> If the US had a more authoritarian government, then the task would be easier, ..........................


Kinda says it all.
So, who gets to be dictator?



> We can talk about there being flaws in the constitution, and the benefits that could be had with constitutional reform.
> My view is that with the vague wording, gun owners and religious groups feel they have unassailable rights to do what ever they like without regard for the rights of others


I suggest you stop trying to divert the topic of this thread, Sean.
If you want to discuss re-writing the US Constitution, you are free to start a thread on it. This one isn't about re-writing the US Constitution to suit some 'thing' in the far future.

So, how are you going to make my society safe enough that there is no need or fear that drives one to think about self-defense?

BTW...you might want to check out the Team at https://www.amconfdn.org/
https://www.amconfdn.org/our-team
Who the hell is Ed Sutton? https://www.suttonwestern.com/ he looks like a real estate developer.
Ronald J. Scott, Jr. has done a lot of things, but his claim *" Professor and Department Chair at Arizona State University "* relates to an online university (  )
DENNY J. MERIDETH, III has no experience in politics beyond being a State legislator, also involved in management of primary and secondary education in foreign nations
VICKIE DEPPE...nothing worthy of being a authority on the Constitution.

Maybe they are nice people, but as authorities on the US .Constitution, I'm not seeing it.
A waste of my time.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> http://www.legalanthology.ch/americ...he-swiss-constitution-of-1848-james-h-hutson/
> 
> The text at hand comments the trials of tribulations of Switzerland in 1803 , in 1813 and the later steps of 1815 arguing that the revolution in Paris that year had encouraged Swiss liberals to oust, the aristocratic leadership. Many of the important Cantons established new governments that were based, according to Hutson, on a model of Jacksonian Democracy In the United States of popular sovereignty.
> Hutson notes the uneven length of the constitutional document and cites Rappard again that it was drafted as a "conscious and deliberate imitation of American model".
> As to federalism, the Swiss constitution of 1848, like the American constitution of 1787, converted a league of sovereign states into a federal state, in which power was divided between different levels of government. Hutson notes differences in the making of the seperation of powers, the executive branch as the Swiss Federal Tribunal and finally as regards the power given to the central government.
> 
> The text ends: "Despite these differences - and it would be possible to mention more - the important fact to remember in assessing the ties between the Sister Republics is that the major institutional features of the Swiss Constitution of 1848 - bicameralism and federalism - were copied from the American Constitution of 1787. As a Swiss scholar has recently asserted, one "could almost speak of a plagiary. " - a citation of an unpublished paper "The United States Constitution and Switzerland"of Jean-Francois Aubert, one of the most learned representatives of Swiss constitutional law, who was American trained as well.


Quit posting BS.
Address the situations that exist in the US currently, not what you think we ought to be according to what worked in a different culture or a different time in history.

I'm not far from making another complaint if you persist with distractions.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> http://www.legalanthology.ch/americ...he-swiss-constitution-of-1848-james-h-hutson/
> 
> ( edited for brevity )


You don't seem to bother posting what is inconvenient.

http://www.legalanthology.ch/americanization/3-contributions/swiss-and-the-american-revolution/



> First, according to James Hutson, the Amercian national constitution, the Articles of Confederation, was constructed on the Swiss model of a confederacy of some over sovereign states. Then, Americans repudiated confederal government in 1787 as impotent and unworkable and adapted a new federal constitution.
> 
> The opponents of the new charter, the Anti Federalists argued that a Swiss style government was still a viable model which offered the best hope for the preservation of American liberty. The Swiss themselves repudiated confederate government in 1848 using many of the same arguments Americans had marshalled against it in 1787 and adapted a Federal constitution modelled after the American constitution of 1787.
> 
> After the Civil War many American state and local governments adapted constitutional reforms borrowed from the Swiss. The initiative and referendum - which continues to this hour to give the politics of California and other influential states their distinctive tone. *The institutional borrowing, according to James Hutson, between the United States and Switzerland ceased after the first World War. Not long afterwards Swiss and Americans ceased referring to each others countries as sister republics.*


BTW, that page was titled 


> 2.1 Swiss and the American Revolution, excerpt, in The Sister Republics, Switzerland and the United States from 1776 to the Present, Library of Congress, Washington DC, 1991, p.13 - 23


----------



## SeanLaurence

Well, I was watching some history from a guy on Youtube today, and it was mentioned that the Swiss had created their constitution using the USA's as a template. I found that site as a second source and as something I could cite. The point is that the two countries do have some of the same roots in terms of their cultural history with regards to their constitutions. 
Since Switzerland is a much smaller country than the US (pop 8.4 vs 340 million, it stands to reason that they can be much more nimble when it comes to constitutional changes than the US can be.
Also, I would suggest they started with the US constitution and improved on it.


So altering the constitution is a sacred cow for you. It should not be done.
And yet, you feel there is a moral breakdown in American society. 
A society who's foundation is based on the constitution.
You are not prepared to entertain the idea that there may be flaws in the constitution that have led to this moral crisis?


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> Well, I was watching some history from a guy on Youtube today, and it was mentioned that the Swiss had created their constitution using the USA's as a template. I found that site as a second source and as something I could cite. The point is that the two countries do have some of the same roots in terms of their cultural history with regards to their constitutions.
> Since Switzerland is a much smaller country than the US (pop 8.4 vs 340 million, it stands to reason that they can be much more nimble when it comes to constitutional changes than the US can be.
> Also, I would suggest they started with the US constitution and improved on it.
> 
> So altering the constitution is a sacred cow for you. It should not be done.
> And yet, you feel there is a moral breakdown in American society.
> A society who's foundation is based on the constitution.
> You are not prepared to entertain the idea that there may be flaws in the constitution that have led to this moral crisis?


I'll repeat this one last time before I make another complaint about your participation and renewed attempt to divert attention away from the topic of this thread.

Go to topic.

This is a debate forum.

If you want to debate the US Constitution, I suggest you start a thread about your complaints and suggestions.
This one is about guns, self defense and how to address the problems of gun violence WITHOUT altering/removing guaranteed rights of the US citizen.


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> This one is about guns, self defense and how to address the problems of gun violence WITHOUT altering/removing guaranteed rights of the US citizen.


So you would like to see change, without making any changes.

Well, what is left then?
Enforcement of existing laws.
Public Service announcements. How are PSA's funded? Who would start a PSA campaign in the US?

I understand that gun regulations are mostly made at the state level. I can't imagine that we would want to get into the weeds in discussing the details of gun law on a state by state basis.
In general, I would imagine that compelling gun owners to be responsible may be the way forward.
How about if gun owners are compelled to carry liability insurance? 
The requirement for car owners to carry liability insurance varies from state to state. I am not sure I would want to drive in a state where drivers are not compelled to be insured.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> So you would like to see change, without making any changes.
> 
> Well, what is left then?
> Enforcement of existing laws.
> Public Service announcements. How are PSA's funded? Who would start a PSA campaign in the US?
> 
> I understand that gun regulations are mostly made at the state level. I can't imagine that we would want to get into the weeds in discussing the details of gun law on a state by state basis.
> In general, I would imagine that compelling gun owners to be responsible may be the way forward.
> How about if gun owners are compelled to carry liability insurance?
> The requirement for car owners to carry liability insurance varies from state to state. I am not sure I would want to drive in a state where drivers are not compelled to be insured.





> So you would like to see change, without making any changes.


You don't like addressing the causes of violence, Sean.
I referred to legalizing drug abuse, and you ignored it.
Currently, a hard core socialist ( often referred to as a communist) campaigning for the Democrat nomination is presenting a plan to expand legalized drug abuse, tax it and turn the proceeds into business grants.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/24/ber...arijuana-plan-in-2020-democratic-primary.html

You've made no comment to the issues of drug abuse and violence.
Have you even thought about it?

Here's one of many links:
https://americanaddictioncenters.org/rehab-guide/addiction-and-violence


> The correlation between substance abuse and violent behavior has been well documented. For example, the Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment noted that more than 75 percent of people who begin treatment for drug addiction report having performed various acts of violence, including (but not limited to) mugging, physical assault, and using a weapon to attack another person.


You'll probably argue pot heads are not violent.
But there is more to consider.

There was a Rand report on marijuana use that discussed the 'gateway' issue.
It showed an alternative reason, that marijuana abuse was often entered into by people that already wanted to be in a culture of drug abuse and saw it as safe means of entering.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB6010.html


> The statistical model could explain the increased risk of hard-drug initiation experienced by marijuana users. Indeed, the model predicted that marijuana users would be at even greater risk of drug use progression than the actual NHSDA data show (see Figure 1).
> The model predicted that only a fraction of hard-drug users would not have tried marijuana first. Whereas in the NHSDA data 1.6 percent of adolescents tried hard drugs before marijuana, the model predicted an even stronger sequencing of initiation, with just 1.1 percent trying hard drugs first.
> The modeled relationship between marijuana use frequency and hard-drug initiation could closely match the actual relationship





> The new DPRC research thus demonstrates that the phenomena supporting claims that marijuana is a gateway drug also support the alternative explanation: that it is not marijuana use but individuals' opportunities and unique propensities to use drugs that determine their risk of initiating hard drugs.


There is absolutely no one here currently or in the past that has argued drug abuse is destructive to our society....more THAN ME! And that it shouldn't be legalized.
Ask Tim ( valis ) he was moderator at that time.
Ask Wayne ( Wino ) he was also present at that time.

A decade ago I was arguing the abuse of pot was damaging our society. Violence was one of the issues.

And now we see a politician stumping on the benefits of collecting Taxation on an activity that drives violence.

But you made no response when I brought up that element.
Well, there you go, something you could be studying, commenting on and deriving a solution for.



> Well, what is left then?
> Enforcement of existing laws.


Yes, that too.
Enforcement of existing Laws. How to address the problems created by state legislators like Keller, near where I live in Ohio. You could address that. 
Even the repeal of laws that directly create violence, such as the legalization of recreational drugs.
Lots you could comment about and address.



> Public Service announcements. How are PSA's funded? Who would start a PSA campaign in the US?


You mean like Johnathan Bank's PSA's .... 'this is your brain on drugs' ( in a frying pan ) analogy?
That didn't work, but what have you in mind?
Present it and demonstrate/discuss why you think it would be more effective than Bank's.
I'm open to suggestions there.



> I understand that gun regulations are mostly made at the state level.


In conjunction with Federal Law, many are, yes. They don't , however, supersede Federal Laws.



> I can't imagine that we would want to get into the weeds in discussing the details of gun law on a state by state basis.


Avoid it if you want, you've avoided a lot already of the more obvious issues that drive violence.
Do state gun regulations create violence? No.
But there are politicians and anti-gun law groups that advocate non compliance to state laws and that does provide a path for criminals and disturbed individuals to acquire weapons for illegal uses that involve violence.
That has been brought up by me in this thread.

What is your solution?



> In general, I would imagine that compelling gun owners to be responsible may be the way forward.


Everyone here seems to agree.
So.....what's your plan for convincing people not to commit violence?



> How about if gun owners are compelled to carry liability insurance?
> The requirement for car owners to carry liability insurance varies from state to state.


Problem with that is it's a bad analogy.
I can and do own vehicles, cars, trucks and motorcycles that I do not have to insure nor are there any laws that require me to insure them, so long as I don't drive them on public highway.
A firearm used for self defense in the home will not be carried on public property and there is no danger to the public involved in the act of carrying a firearm legally on public property as there is with vehicles maneuvering public highways.

Insurance would be logical for those that enforce the law, however. But the municipalities they work for already underwrite their liability when court issues arise from accidents. So, I don't see the 'need' as individuals.


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> You don't like addressing the causes of violence, Sean.
> I referred to legalizing drug abuse, and you ignored it.


I refer you to post #135 on this thread where I stated:
"How about we go with the "four pillar approach"?:
Prevention, Harm Reduction, Treatment/Recovery, and Community Safety.
It seems to be an idea that is discussed in Canada, but I cannot see why the principles would not apply in the USA."
And to your question as to if marijuana should be legalized, I replied:
"Yes, because drug and alcohol addiction should be treated like a disease rather than a crime."



> Currently, a hard core socialist ( often referred to as a communist) campaigning for the Democrat nomination is presenting a plan to expand legalized drug abuse, tax it and turn the proceeds into business grants.


I suppose that Sean Hannity calls Bernie a communist, but he would be incorrect. I on't want to get stuck arguing about what label to apply to a particular individual here. Can we stick to "far left"?



> You'll probably argue pot heads are not violent.


The links you provided seem to talk about "substance abuse" without specifically calling out marijuana as leading to violence. I did not read carefully, so I may have missed something.



> There was a Rand report on marijuana use that discussed the 'gateway' issue.
> It showed an alternative reason, that marijuana abuse was often entered into by people that already wanted to be in a culture of drug abuse and saw it as safe means of entering.
> https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB6010.html


The key word in the above sentence was "often" as in "more than sometimes" but less than "the majority of times".

I didn't talk about my personal feelings on substance use, so allow me to do that now.
First of all, the poison is in the dose. A small amount of alcohol or drug use is unlikely to cause any harm.
The amount of alcohol that I consume is far below statistical averages. I don't much care for the taste, and if I over indulge I get sick. I am also cheap, and find it to be expensive.
I don't smoke, never tried. I had asthma as a child and don't need to do anything to compromise the health of my lungs. I fail to see the point of smoking and it boggles my mind that so many people continue to take up the habit.
I see marijuana usage in a similar vein as smoking and drinking. Except that it is still illegal under US federal law to partake. This can be a huge problem at the US Canada border, where an admission of having smoked weed at any time in the past can get you barred. I know someone who was barred for the uttering statement "Hasn't everyone done it in school?" to a US border agent.
I once attended a Pink Floyd concert where I left buzzed from second hand smoke.



> There is absolutely no one here currently or in the past that has argued drug abuse is destructive to our society ....more THAN ME!


I will support your position that "drug *abuse* is destructive to our society"


> And that it shouldn't be legalized.


I will argue that prohibition did not work to solve the problem of alcohol abuse, and it is not a solution to the problem of drug abuse.
Addiction should be handled as a medical issue and not a legal one.



> A decade ago I was arguing the abuse of pot was damaging our society. Violence was one of the issues.


I would argue that there is far more violence associated with alcohol abuse.



> And now we see a politician stumping on the benefits of collecting Taxation on an activity that drives violence.


That has been a common selling point in most if not all jurisdictions where the legalization of marijuana has been proposed.



> Enforcement of existing Laws. How to address the problems created by state legislators like Keller, near where I live in Ohio. You could address that.


I will have to get back to you on that. I know nothing of Keller and the problems caused.



> You mean like Johnathan Bank's PSA's .... 'this is your brain on drugs' ( in a frying pan ) analogy?
> That didn't work, but what have you in mind?
> Present it and demonstrate/discuss why you think it would be more effective than Bank's.
> I'm open to suggestions there.


As discussed before, I am aware of the ineffectiveness of that campaign. To use the acronym was only a shortcut to express the idea on public education etc.



> Avoid it if you want, you've avoided a lot already of the more obvious issues that drive violence.


I think that social inequality has a large factor in the violence that you pointed out in your earlier postings listing the lists of riots. That especially goes to income and wealth inequality.



> Do state gun regulations create violence? No.


I agree,
But the presence of guns can (usually does) make violence more deadly.



> But there are politicians and anti-gun law groups that advocate non compliance to state laws and that does provide a path for criminals and disturbed individuals to acquire weapons for illegal uses that involve violence. That has been brought up by me in this thread. What is your solution?


I think that I have offered one already: Stricter gun control. Create legislation requiring a higher level of responsibility for the ownership of a fire arms. Training, Storage requirements etc.



> Problem with that is it's a bad analogy.
> I can and do own vehicles, cars, trucks and motorcycles that I do not have to insure nor are there any laws that require me to insure them, so long as I don't drive them on public highway.
> A firearm used for self defense in the home will not be carried on public property and there is no danger to the public involved in the act of carrying a firearm legally on public property as there is with vehicles manoeuvring public highways.


Well, we can discuss whether the insurance should be carried for all firearms, or only those to be carried in public. Insurance rates would be set based on risk. It might end up being a complex system, but it does allow the state to regulate firearms, and gives law enforcement more tools to enforce gun safety etc.



> Insurance would be logical for those that enforce the law, however. But the municipalities they work for already underwrite their liability when court issues arise from accidents. So, I don't see the 'need' as individuals.


The idea is not about need, it is about regulation. And it monetizes the risk of owning a firearm.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> I refer you to post #135 on this thread where I stated:
> "How about we go with the "four pillar approach"?:
> Prevention, Harm Reduction, Treatment/Recovery, and Community Safety.
> It seems to be an idea that is discussed in Canada, but I cannot see why the principles would not apply in the USA."
> And to your question as to if marijuana should be legalized, I replied:
> "Yes, because drug and alcohol addiction should be treated like a disease rather than a crime."
> 
> I suppose that Sean Hannity calls Bernie a communist, but he would be incorrect. I on't want to get stuck arguing about what label to apply to a particular individual here. Can we stick to "far left"?
> 
> The links you provided seem to talk about "substance abuse" without specifically calling out marijuana as leading to violence. I did not read carefully, so I may have missed something.
> 
> The key word in the above sentence was "often" as in "more than sometimes" but less than "the majority of times".
> 
> I didn't talk about my personal feelings on substance use, so allow me to do that now.
> First of all, the poison is in the dose. A small amount of alcohol or drug use is unlikely to cause any harm.
> The amount of alcohol that I consume is far below statistical averages. I don't much care for the taste, and if I over indulge I get sick.  I am also cheap, and find it to be expensive.
> I don't smoke, never tried. I had asthma as a child and don't need to do anything to compromise the health of my lungs. I fail to see the point of smoking and it boggles my mind that so many people continue to take up the habit.
> I see marijuana usage in a similar vein as smoking and drinking. Except that it is still illegal under US federal law to partake. This can be a huge problem at the US Canada border, where an admission of having smoked weed at any time in the past can get you barred. I know someone who was barred for the uttering statement "Hasn't everyone done it in school?" to a US border agent.
> I once attended a Pink Floyd concert where I left buzzed from second hand smoke.
> 
> I will support your position that "drug *abuse* is destructive to our society"
> 
> I will argue that prohibition did not work to solve the problem of alcohol abuse, and it is not a solution to the problem of drug abuse.
> Addiction should be handled as a medical issue and not a legal one.
> 
> I would argue that there is far more violence associated with alcohol abuse.
> 
> That has been a common selling point in most if not all jurisdictions where the legalization of marijuana has been proposed.
> 
> I will have to get back to you on that. I know nothing of Keller and the problems caused.
> 
> As discussed before, I am aware of the ineffectiveness of that campaign. To use the acronym was only a shortcut to express the idea on public education etc.
> 
> I think that social inequality has a large factor in the violence that you pointed out in your earlier postings listing the lists of riots. That especially goes to income and wealth inequality.
> 
> I agree,
> But the presence of guns can (usually does) make violence more deadly.
> 
> I think that I have offered one already: Stricter gun control. Create legislation requiring a higher level of responsibility for the ownership of a fire arms. Training, Storage requirements etc.
> 
> Well, we can discuss whether the insurance should be carried for all firearms, or only those to be carried in public. Insurance rates would be set based on risk. It might end up being a complex system, but it does allow the state to regulate firearms, and gives law enforcement more tools to enforce gun safety etc.
> 
> The idea is not about need, it is about regulation. And it monetizes the risk of owning a firearm.





> I refer you to post #135 on this thread where I stated:
> "How about we go with the "four pillar approach"?:
> Prevention, Harm Reduction, Treatment/Recovery, and Community Safety.


Well...how about it?
There is no description of what you posted, just generalities.
Just stating a goal isn't the same as providing a solution.
There are now laws to allow drug abuse.
How do you intend to promote prevention when it's legal to abuse?
Harm reduction? That won't happen until there is actual reduction of abuse.
Treatment/recovery....we have it already.
Community safety? How when the drug laws are being written counter to that objective?

Like I keep saying, just posting 'make it so' is not a solution, but it is a goal.

You entered this discussion objecting there were no solutions being offered.
So far, you haven't provided any.



> And to your question as to if marijuana should be legalized, I replied:
> "Yes, because drug and alcohol addiction should be treated like a disease rather than a crime."


You are proving my point.
You endorse drug addiction.
But the issues should be decriminalizing the act while retaining the illegality of the abuse and criminality of distribution if you want to seek a solution.
Portugal uses this approach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal
It looks like a good policy to me and I've recommended it during my past debates about not legalizing recreational drug abuse.

But you disagree.


> marijuana should be legalized, I replied:
> "Yes


I suspect you simply don't know what you are talking about.



> I suppose that Sean Hannity calls Bernie a communist, but he would be incorrect



https://www.wsj.com/articles/sanders-praises-communist-capitalism-11568155904
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ernie-sanders-a-communist-and-a-disaster-zone
Hannity?....there are others 



> The links you provided seem to talk about "substance abuse" without specifically calling out marijuana as leading to violence. I did not read carefully, so I may have missed something.


Yes. You missed it.
Pot abuse is but a stepping stone to harder drugs and violence.
And you argue to legalize it.
Where I have in the past and still do prefer, decriminalization of abuse as in the Portugal situation with harsh penalties for distribution.

I see no rationale nor logic to your stated position to legalize a act that leads to violence rather than a solution.



> I didn't talk about my personal feelings on substance use, so allow me to do that now.


Your personal 'feelings' are irrelevant in this discussion. 
I suggest you spend more efforts on solutions.

Look at this, you posted:



> Well, we can discuss whether the insurance should be carried for all firearms, or only those to be carried in public. Insurance rates would be set based on risk.


In case you forgot, the topic of this thread is about gun violence, not 'risk'.
Addressing 'risk' is not a deterrent to violence any more than car insurance is a deterrent against accidents. 
All you are doing is again trying to start a BS diversion away from the topic of this thread.


----------



## Johnny b

BTW, alcohol is a drug.


----------



## Johnny b

I missed a few 



SeanLaurence said:


> ..............
> 
> The key word in the above sentence was "often" as in "more than sometimes" but less than "the majority of times".
> .
> 
> I see marijuana usage in a similar vein as smoking and drinking. Except that it is still illegal under US federal law to partake.
> 
> I will argue that prohibition did not work to solve the problem of alcohol abuse, and it is not a solution to the problem of drug abuse.
> Addiction should be handled as a medical issue and not a legal one.
> 
> I would argue that there is far more violence associated with alcohol abuse.
> 
> I will have to get back to you on that. I know nothing of Keller and the problems caused.
> 
> I think that social inequality has a large factor in the violence that you pointed out in your earlier postings listing the lists of riots. That especially goes to income and wealth inequality.
> 
> But the presence of guns can (usually does) make violence more deadly.
> 
> I think that I have offered one already: Stricter gun control. Create legislation requiring a higher level of responsibility for the ownership of a fire arms. Training, Storage requirements etc.
> 
> The idea is not about need, it is about regulation. And it monetizes the risk of owning a firearm.





> The key word in the above sentence was "often" as in "more than sometimes" but less than "the majority of times".


Just pointing out that sophistry isn't a solution, either.



> I see marijuana usage in a similar vein as smoking and drinking. Except that it is still illegal under US federal law to partake.


And not enforced.
States have been making recreational marijuana abuse legal.
The Federal Law has been ignored for quite a while.

https://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/state-marijuana-laws-map-medical-recreational.html



> I will argue that prohibition did not work to solve the problem of alcohol abuse, and it is not a solution to the problem of drug abuse.


So? You can argue all you want, but with whom?
I've never suggested prohibition. My suggestion is and always has been.... the only reasonable response is decriminalization of marijuana abuse, but not legalization of it.



> I would argue that there is far more violence associated with alcohol abuse.


So?
Is your argument one of the lesser of two evils?
If so, how does it address the dynamic and association of marijuana abuse to harder drug abuse?
I gave you the discussion at Rand. Is marijuana abuse only acceptable before greater involvement in a drug culture, and if so how do you differentiate between those that stop from those that go deeper into that culture....before they make that decision?

Same with alcohol, how do you determine who winds up the drunk after their first beer?

You simply haven't thought this out.



> I know nothing of Keller and the problems caused.


Why?
I mentioned it early on in this thread, have you read this thread?
And I've referenced Her in discussions with you.
Maybe you ought to actually read this thread from the beginning instead of trying to derail it?



> But the presence of guns can (usually does) make violence more deadly.


Of course, that's common sense.
In an assault, home intrusion or any criminal endeavor, a criminal with a firearm is more dangerous than one with out.
So? What is your point?
Remove firearms from criminals? Well....agreed 
Work on a solution 



> I think that I have offered one already: Stricter gun control. Create legislation requiring a higher level of responsibility for the ownership of a fire arms. Training, Storage requirements etc


The laws are there. Training is available. Storage requirements have been mandated in many states.
And yet there are violations.
How do you intend to solve that?
Make more laws that are ignored?



> The idea is not about need, it is about regulation. And it monetizes the risk of owning a firearm.


And that also has no effect on criminal intent.

Still not seeing any 'solutions'.

Missed this;


> I think that social inequality has a large factor in the violence that you pointed out in your earlier postings listing the lists of riots. That especially goes to income and wealth inequality.


A point.
So what's your solution?
( I already suspect  but go ahead, nothing to do with corruption I assume  )
But let's make it a 'do able' solution.


----------



## Johnny b

I'm going to take a short break, Sean, a day or so, from this thread.
So, that will give you some uninterrupted time to devise a solution to stop people in poverty from killing themselves and others.

Good luck


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> So far, you haven't provided any.


I disagree.


> You are proving my point.
> You endorse drug addiction.


No I don't.



> But the issues should be decriminalizing the act while retaining the illegality of the abuse and criminality of distribution if you want to seek a solution.
> Portugal uses this approach.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal
> It looks like a good policy to me and I've recommended it during my past debates about not legalizing recreational drug abuse.


I was thinking about using the Portuguese example in this thread, but in the past you have dismissed using examples of how other countries do things as invalid. I am glad that we can agree that the Portuguese approach has merit.
I did notice in reading that article that technically, Portugal has "maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization." I had assumed that they had decriminalized drug use.

I used the word "Legalization", when I ought to have used the word "Decriminalization" in my post.



> Yes. You missed it.
> Pot abuse is but a stepping stone to harder drugs and violence.
> And you argue to legalize it.
> Where I have in the past and still do prefer, decriminalization of abuse as in the Portugal situation with harsh penalties for distribution.


It looks like I did not miss anything then. The idea that Marijuana is a gateway drug is a fallacy.
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/marijuana-gateway-drug
"These findings are consistent with the idea of marijuana as a "gateway drug." However, the majority of people who use marijuana do not go on to use other, "harder" substances. Also, cross-sensitization is not unique to marijuana. Alcohol and nicotine also prime the brain for a heightened response to other drugs and are, like marijuana, also typically used before a person progresses to other, more harmful substances."
I see no rationale nor logic to your stated position to legalize a act that leads to violence rather than a solution.



> Addressing 'risk' is not a deterrent to violence any more than car insurance is a deterrent against accidents.


It seems that you have missed the point I was trying to make.
The idea is for insurance rates to be set based on circumstance. A farmer who keeps a bolt action rifle in a properly secured safe and uses it to protect his livestock from wild animals would be afforded a low premium. A 22 year old high school dropout living in his parent's suburban basement wanting to purchase an AR style weapon with a high capacity magazine would be assessed a high premium. The latter individual might be denied access to firearms altogether with more restrictive background checks.



> BTW, alcohol is a drug.


I never said it wasn't.



> States have been making recreational marijuana abuse legal.
> The Federal Law has been ignored for quite a while.


It appears that you feel that any non medicinal use of marijuana is "abuse". I disagree with that. In the similar manner that responsible adults can consume alcohol safely in moderate amounts, so can they consume cannabis responsibly.



> Why? I mentioned it early on in this thread, have you read this thread? And I've referenced Her in discussions with you


And I did have a *quick* look at the references when you did, but it has been a while, and I will have to look at them again before I can speak to them. Patience.



> Of course, that's common sense.
> In an assault, home intrusion or any criminal endeavor, a criminal with a firearm is more dangerous than one with out.
> So? What is your point?
> Remove firearms from criminals? Well....agreed


Just how common are home intrusions in your part of the world anyway?

You are clearly thinking worst case: Both the victim and the criminal have guns. What is the likelihood that a gun will achieve a positive outcome for the victim? If there is an element of surprise, then it could go to whoever had the surprise. A criminal entering the house quietly and searching the house for resistance may easily catch the homeowner off guard.
If the homeowner heard signs of a break-in, and maintained a tactical advantage, then of course it could go his/her way.
Overall, It would be a 50/50 chance.

If the criminal has a gun, and the homeowner does not, then the criminal would likely uses it to intimidate and for self protection. There is a good chance that they would leave without using it.



> And that also has no effect on criminal intent.


What kind of criminal intent are you talking about?
In my city, Property crime rules - drug addicts breaking into homes to steal things that they can sell to fund their next fix. They don't want any trouble.
Do they deserve to be shot?
The solutions are in the hard work of addressing social inequality that leads to desperation and addiction. Support people at their lowest point to get them out of the despair that makes criminal behaviour an option.
Try to identify people slipping into a cycle of poverty, and support them before it happens.


----------



## Johnny b

So I suggest you use your time wisely


----------



## Johnny b

And now, you have a new element to consider from this mornings news.

5 more years of Trump is a possibility.
So you'll need to address your 'solutions' in ways they can be accomplished in such an environment.

I await your solutions.


----------



## Brigham

In my city, Property crime rules - drug addicts breaking into homes to steal things that they can sell to fund their next fix. They don't want any trouble.
Do they deserve to be shot?

Yes.


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> Enforcement of existing Laws. How to address the problems created by state legislators like Keller, near where I live in Ohio. You could address that.


 I went back to post #92 where you started by citing:
https://www.daytondailynews.com/new...s-state-lawmaker-says/jf8XNJPSfKFl13yggzTFgM/
and quoted:
'State Rep. Candice Keller, R-Middletown, said in a post to her Facebook page that blame for the Dayton shootings should be placed on the breakdown of the traditional family, gay marriage, violent video games, professional athletes who protest the American flag, recreational marijuana and "snowflakes, who can't accept a duly-elected President."'
This sounds to me to be a similar position as yours (moral breakdown and marijuana use), and is her opinion, rather than some form of action.

The article paints a more stark picture of her: Criticizing Parkland students for advocating for gun control.

Ultimately it is up to voters to pick suitable representatives, and it is a sad state of affairs that few well suited people bother to run for office. Even when candidates run with the purest of intentions, the requirement for constant fundraising ends up creating corruption.

So, Changing campaign finance laws may also be another key to the puzzle, so that politicians can focus on creating good policy for their constituents rather than pandering do the interest of their donors.


----------



## SeanLaurence

The dispatch.com articles that you cited are behind paywalls. I did not feel like registering to read the articles.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> The dispatch.com articles that you cited are behind paywalls. I did not feel like registering to read the articles.


The problem is on your side, there is no paywall there.
I have no subscription to the Columbus Dispatch.

Here's the article in it's entirety

*Editorial: Kasich order to tighten gun checks is needed *
https://www.dispatch.com/opinion/20180427/editorial-kasich-order-to-tighten-gun-checks-is-needed



> Ohio is a tough state in which to enact tougher gun laws.
> 
> That's why it was good this week to see Gov. John Kasich take steps to try to make existing laws more effective in keeping guns away from those more likely to put them to tragic use.
> 
> Kasich's executive order on Monday is a welcome follow-up to revelations uncovered by The Dispatch and WBNS-TV (Channel 10) in February and March 2015 that the state's criminal-background -check system was failing to promptly flag felons and those judged mentally disqualified from possessing firearms.
> 
> The state has worked to upgrade its hit-and-miss system of criminal-background checks, which the media investigation showed was enabling hundreds of felons to wrongly clear background checks sought by employers. Besides being used for permits to carry guns, the background-check system is relied on for hiring people in sensitive positions such as schoolteachers, police officers, firefighters, medical professionals, foster parents and day care workers.
> 
> The governor wants a report as soon as possible on how compliance has improved since 2015 and specific recommendations by Aug. 1 on eliminating any remaining barriers for complete reporting to ensure guns aren't being sold to or carried by Ohioans not eligible to have them.
> 
> Several state agencies - the Office of Criminal Justice Services within the Department of Public Safety, the Bureau of Criminal Investigations and Identification and the Ohio Supreme Court - released their own report in November 2015 identifying ways to get conviction and mental adjudication reports into state and federal databases to comply with state and federal gun laws.
> 
> Kasich appropriately seeks an update on the 2015 efforts to improve reporting and goes a couple of steps further. The governor ordered Ohio public offices that handle data needed for the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System to provide their reporting history for the past four years within 30 days and directs the criminal-justice services office to post online "a list of any public official or office that fails to submit a complete response to OCJS within the required time frame."
> 
> Kasich's order also asks the state auditor to include compliance with reporting to the federal database in its reviews of public offices subject to reporting requirements.
> 
> Not surprisingly, the governor's executive order was greeted with some political backlash, at least in Butler County. Republican State Rep. Candice Keller of Middletown and Butler County Sheriff Richard Jones both objected.
> 
> Shamefully, Keller went so far as to declare county sheriffs throughout Ohio should "completely ignore" the governor's attempt to identify any continuing weaknesses in the background check system.
> 
> Kasich's action comes as state lawmakers consider changes to Ohio gun laws.
> 
> Pending bills include some to loosen gun restrictions - for example, House Bill 228′s "stand your ground" legislation - as well as some to tighten prohibitions - such as House Bill 585′s "red flag" proposal to allow guns to be temporarily seized from people threatening violence. The latter contains several changes backed by Kasich with bipartisan support.
> 
> Hopes are not high for the General Assembly to enact the kind of firearm restraints many have called for in the wake of tragic mass shootings. We hope the legislature does not move in the other direction.


----------



## Johnny b

The other link in it's entirety:

* Bill would allow Ohioans to carry guns without permit, training, background checks *
https://www.dispatch.com/news/20190...uns-without-permit-training-background-checks



> Almost half of Ohio House Republicans are pushing for passage of a bill that would allow all law-abiding Ohioans to carry a concealed weapon without obtaining a permit - a measure that GOP Gov. Mike DeWine supports.
> 
> The so-called constitutional carry bill would permit anyone age 21 or over, who is not disqualified by federal law due to a felony conviction or other offense from obtaining a weapon, to carry a hidden gun - without obtaining a concealed-carry permit.
> 
> Meanwhile, about 70 gun advocates, largely from Ohio militia groups, milled about the plaza west of the Statehouse on Thursday carrying rifles and handguns in a "thank you" to Ohio lawmakers for passing legislation, which was signed by DeWine, to correct a flaw in a bill that could have classified many long guns as prohibited "dangerous ordnance." The previously scheduled event was not connected to the bill introduced Wednesday.
> 
> A group of about a dozen gun opponents stood on the other side of a barricade and taunted the pro-gun group with chants amid a heavy presence of State Highway Patrol troopers.
> 
> One woman in the pro-gun group carried a Confederate flag along with her handgun, while others wore clothing with pro-gun messages. One man, with a handgun on each hip, wore a red sweatshirt that read "Black Guns Matter." A woman carried a sign describing her gun as a "rape prevention kit."
> 
> "We're here to recognize they did their job, fixed this mistake and recognized the Constitution," said one man wearing military fatigues and a vest with a handgun tucked in a pocket across his chest.
> 
> Currently, Ohioans can only carry a concealed weapon after obtaining a $67 permit from a county sheriff upon passing a criminal background check and completing eight hours of training by a certified instructor, including two hours of range time and live-fire training.
> 
> DeWine press secretary Dan Tierney said of the bill: "Gov. DeWine supports protecting Ohioans' Second Amendment rights. We are reviewing the recently introduced proposal and look forward to following its movement through the legislative process."
> The legislation would not be restricted to handguns - it also would allow Ohioans to conceal and carry long guns, such as rifles and shotguns. Ohioans already are allowed to openly carry firearms without a permit.
> 
> House Bill 174 was introduced Wednesday by GOP Reps. Ron Hood of Ashville and Tom Brinkman of Cincinnati. The measure immediately attracted 27 co-sponsors from among the 61 majority House Republicans. Hood and Brinkman have introduced the same legislation for years without winning passage.
> 
> Chris Dorr, director of Ohio Gun Owners, posted a YouTube video featuring comments from Hood and Brinkman after the bill was filed in the clerk's office.
> 
> "Gun owners are law-abiding citizens who follow the rules, and we need to let them be able to protect themselves. That's what this is all about," Brinkman said. Sixteen states now permit the carrying of weapons without permits.
> 
> Rep. David Leland, D-Columbus, lamented what he portrayed as the Republicans' obsession with guns when issues such as health care and education demand legislative attention.
> 
> "It's going the exact opposite direction of what most people want," he said of the bill. "If more guns make more people safer, we would be the safest country in the world. Yet, our gun violence exceeds most every other country on this planet."
> 
> Dorr wrote in an email to supporters: "We already know there will be efforts by anti-gun Democrats and Rino-Republicans to block, stop and KILL Constitutional Carry. And as we saw last General Assembly, there's always a lily-white coward willing to cut a deal and water down these pro-gun bills."
> 
> The bill also would repeal a current requirement that concealed-carry owners notify police officers they are carrying a gun when stopped. It also would authorize the expungement of the misdemeanor offense of anyone previously convicted of failing to inform an officer that he or she had a gun.
> 
> The Republican state representatives co-sponsoring the constitutional carry bill are Niraj Antani of Miamisburg; Brian Baldridge of Winchester; John Becker of Union Township in Clermont County; Louis Blessing III of Cincinnati; Speaker Pro Tem Jim Butler of Oakwood; Sara Carruthers of Hamilton; Jon Cross of Kenton; Bill Dean of Xenia; Kris Jordan of Delaware; Candice Keller of Middletown; Kyle Koehler of Springfield, and George Lang of West Chester.
> 
> Also, Scott Lipps of Franklin; Susan Manchester of Waynesfield; Don Manning of New Middletown; Riordan McClain of Upper Sandusky; Derek Merrin of Monclova Township in Lucas County; Jena Powell of Arcanum; Craig Riedel of Defiance; Mark Romanchuk of Ontario near Mansfield; Tim Schaffer of Lancaster; former Speaker Ryan Smith of Bidwell; Todd Smith of Farmersville; Nino Vitale of Urbana; Scott Wiggam of Wooster; Shane Wilkin of Hillsboro; and Paul Zeltwanger of Mason.


----------



## Johnny b

I supported and voted for Kaisch when he ran for Governor.
Didn't vote for DeWine.

This has been my position all along
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/guns.1186438/page-7#post-9625191

So cut the BS and post some solutions


----------



## Johnny b

This popped up this morning in the news:

*New push for gun violence prevention wins support from both sides *
https://www.keyt.com/news/politics/...ntion-wins-support-from-both-sides/1137429173



> The legislation, titled the Prevent Family Fire Act of 2019, is being introduced in the House by Democratic Rep. Mike Levin of California and Republican Rep. Rodney Davis of Illinois. It will be co-sponsored by other House Democrats as well as Republican Reps. Mike Turner of Ohio and Elise Stefanik of New York.
> 
> The legislation would provide a tax credit to retailers in the United States to incentivize the sale of devices that allow firearms to be stored safely.


This incentive is a good way to advance safety in the home while avoiding the issue of Congress mandating private commercial transactions, since it doesn't have that power.
The gun owner's choice.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> ...............
> So, Changing campaign finance laws may also be another key to the puzzle, so that politicians can focus on creating good policy for their constituents rather than pandering do the interest of their donors.


There are already laws against committing violence and mayhem.
How is that supposed to reduce the intent of those that want to do harm?

How will changing campaign finance laws convince people not to vote for representatives like Keller?


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> ............
> 'State Rep. Candice Keller, R-Middletown, said in a post to her Facebook page that blame for the Dayton shootings should be placed on the breakdown of the traditional family, gay marriage, violent video games, professional athletes who protest the American flag, recreational marijuana and "snowflakes, who can't accept a duly-elected President."'
> This sounds to me to be a similar position as yours (moral breakdown and marijuana use), and is her opinion, rather than some form of action.
> ............................


It sounds to me like you don't recognize hatred.
Keller draws upon it looking for like minded people.
So far, you haven't addressed this problem, just 'talked around it', inferring you can legislate emotions.



> This sounds to me to be a similar position as yours


I'm well aware you hate me 
But that only makes you look foolish.


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> I supported and voted for Kaisch when he ran for Governor.
> Didn't vote for DeWine.
> 
> This has been my position all along
> https://forums.techguy.org/threads/guns.1186438/page-7#post-9625191
> 
> So cut the BS and post some solutions


How about the suggestion from this group?
https://marchforourlives.com/peace-plan/
Essentially, they suggest licencing requirements for gun ownership. 
"National polling shows strong support for gun licensing, which is favored by 77% of Americans, including 68% of gun owners."
"The Second Amendment - we believe the next administration must commit to reexamining the District of Columbia v. Heller decision. Many distinguished jurists from across the political spectrum have excoriated the Heller decision as contrary to the historical record and the height of judicial activism."
"Repeal PLCAA - one of the biggest favors granted to the gun lobby by Congress is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which gives gun manufacturers and dealers broad immunity from legal liability. PLCAA is both an injustice - removing a method of redress for gun violence victims and survivors - and a shield for the industry from economic incentives to make their products and distribution channels safer. We must repeal PLCAA."


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> How about the suggestion from this group?
> https://marchforourlives.com/peace-plan/
> Essentially, they suggest licencing requirements for gun ownership.
> "National polling shows strong support for gun licensing, which is favored by 77% of Americans, including 68% of gun owners."
> "The Second Amendment - we believe the next administration must commit to reexamining the District of Columbia v. Heller decision. Many distinguished jurists from across the political spectrum have excoriated the Heller decision as contrary to the historical record and the height of judicial activism."
> "Repeal PLCAA - one of the biggest favors granted to the gun lobby by Congress is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which gives gun manufacturers and dealers broad immunity from legal liability. PLCAA is both an injustice - removing a method of redress for gun violence victims and survivors - and a shield for the industry from economic incentives to make their products and distribution channels safer. We must repeal PLCAA."


I didn't see any examples or list of politicians they support.

Nor here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_our_lives

Looks like some good ideas for gun control, but I see nothing in the way of a 'Peace Plan' that changes the destructive social attitudes causing violence. 
There is a big 'How to' associated with a lot of what they'd like accomplished.
You did the same, in earlier posts.
It's nicer to be nice......
Try legislating it......how?

'How' was the task you accepted.
And you posted you didn't know.

It is a tough task.


----------



## SeanLaurence

Mitch is sitting on 110 bills relating to gun control as of last August.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/congress-has-110-gun-bills-on-the-table-heres-where-they-stand

I went to congress.gov to see if I could get more up to date and nuanced info, and found that there are a ton of bills of all stripes that have been introduced. Using a filter, for the word "gun" in the title I got 163 results. Some of those results would be bills of little consequence, such as H Res 162: *Expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives and honoring the memory of the victims of the mass shooting in Aurora, Illinois, on February 15, 2019*.

However H.R. 820: *Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2019* looks like something that would be a step forward if only it would be moved forward. ( have not read it)

Did you get a chance to watch Nova - The Violence Paradox? 
Some of the ideas or are discussed in the program.
"And in places like Baltimore, where violence "interrupters" treat violence like a contagious disease, NOVA examines evidence-based approaches to making the world more peaceful"

Here is a review of the program, which highlights the points made:
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/enemy-within-review-of-the-violence-paradox-nova-pbs/


----------



## Johnny b

I haven't watched 'The Violence Paradox'

I skimmed the review.

Last lines:



> What is that escape? At the end of the Star Trek episode "The Enemy Within," with which I began this essay, Mr. Spock offers this solution to getting our inner demons and better angels to live together: "Being split in two halves is no theory with me, doctor. I have a human half, you see, as well as an alien half, submerged, constantly at war with each other. I survive it because my intelligence wins over both, makes them live together."
> 
> In the end, then, it is our intelligence, especially when coupled to reason and science, that that will keep the enemy within in check.


I remember promoting similar in another thread.

https://forums.techguy.org/threads/the-trump-term-of-office.1183765/page-109#post-9677267
excerpt:


> Sean, there is a tide of dissatisfaction overwhelming our society.
> Truth and facts have become commodities to sell in the form of propaganda.
> Sides are forming, directed by these 'truths and facts' but all they wind up being are extremes in support of those seeking power, the source of the propaganda.
> 
> Counter it?
> Start with improving education.
> Teach critical thinking.
> Reject absolutism as an argument.


I am 'Spock'


----------



## Johnny b

So, Sean.....what are YOUR thoughts on reducing violence?


----------



## Johnny b

Considering the NRA's close ties to Russia and the funneling of money into the 2016 election of Trump, this news is not a surprise.

* New York Attorney General Moves To Dissolve The NRA After Fraud Investigation *
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/06/8997...to-dissolve-the-nra-after-fraud-investigation



> The attorney general of New York took action Thursday to dissolve the National Rifle Association following an 18-month investigation that found evidence the powerful gun rights group is "fraught with fraud and abuse."
> 
> Attorney General Letitia James claims in a lawsuit filed Thursday that she found financial misconduct in the millions of dollars and that it contributed to a loss of more than $64 million over a three-year period.
> 
> The suit alleges that top NRA executives misused charitable funds for personal gain, awarded contracts to friends and family members, and provided contracts to former employees to ensure loyalty.


The whole article is worth a read. There is simply too much to copy and paste.

An organization that looks after the rights of the citizen wouldn't be doing that


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnnyb,
Your NPR story misses the juicy details of the fraud. Try the NY POST:
https://nypost.com/2020/08/06/some-of-the-nras-alleged-financial-abuses-in-new-york-lawsuit/

"LaPierre and his family flew to the Bahamas at least eight times in five years
LaPierre, 70, allegedly made at least eight private flights to and from the Bahamas since June 2015, totaling more than $500,000 in costs - all of it billed to the NRA"

"During the Bahamas trips, LaPierre had the use of a 108-foot yacht, named Illusions, courtesy of MMP Principal, a company the NRA has paid over $60 million for fundraising, printing and mailing services since 2014. LaPierre described Illusions as "a big, big yacht" with a crew that includes a chef, according to the filings, which also noted that the vessel has four staterooms, a 16-foot jet boat and two jet skis."



Johnny b said:


> Considering the NRA's close ties to Russia and the funneling of money into the 2016 election of Trump, this news is not a surprise.
> 
> * New York Attorney General Moves To Dissolve The NRA After Fraud Investigation *
> https://www.npr.org/2020/08/06/8997...to-dissolve-the-nra-after-fraud-investigation
> 
> The whole article is worth a read. There is simply too much to copy and paste.
> 
> An organization that looks after the rights of the citizen wouldn't be doing that


----------



## Johnny b

Interesting NPR podcast. A 14 minute audio recording.
After intro, you can bypass the ads by skipping to minute 3:00
The theme:
(in my words)
Most Militias are illegal and violate the 2nd Amendment.
Most militias are terrorist groups.

https://edge2.pod.npr.org/anon.npr-...283__552201592eb900e9491fcb7c46c71502b8c08608


----------



## Wino

I recently posted the following on a gun site that isn't a right wing echo chamber of stupid stuff. I cleaned up the post so as not to get in trouble with cookiegal. Totally agree militias are nothing more than terrorist and DJT is the leader. Michigan should charge him with aiding and abetting a state over throw of their government. He sows discontent when and wherever he goes or opens his obese puffy face.



> I don't give two spits for any militia - right or left wing. My feelings for them is same as I feel about open carry.
> 
> From my favorite book of fables: "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me."
> 
> I quit playing cowboys and indians, cops and robbers and war games about 12/13 YO. Militias and OC are just extensions of a juvenile IMHO.


----------



## valis

compensating for certain, um, inadequacies IMO.


----------



## Wino

A bit of levity in these trying times. This had me ROFLMAO !!
Take My Guns...........Please !!


----------



## Johnny b

LOL.


----------



## RT

I too, did the LOL thing


----------



## Johnny b

Interesting article in USAToday about how the NRA is attempting to avoid legal issues in the State of new York.
It's not about being bankrupt, turns out they aren't.
It's about further beating the law in a system they attempt to corrupt ( their acting as a mechanism for Russia to fund the Trump campaign back in 2016 )

* The NRA says its finances are solid. So why is it filing for bankruptcy? *
https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...onal-rifle-association-chapter-11/6657581002/

NRA and it's goals?
IMO, their motto is "you can keep your guns but you have to bow down to Russian domination".

Just follow the money and Rudy Giuliani.


----------



## Wino

Moving to Texas probably good idea vs. NY - not that I'm thrilled. NRA lost me long time ago - too radical right for me. They lost sight of their reason for being. They will end up on the wrong side of history.


----------



## valis

Wino said:


> Moving to Texas probably good idea vs. NY - not that I'm thrilled. NRA lost me long time ago - too radical right for me. They lost sight of their reason for being. They will end up on the wrong side of history.


indeed. The lost me as well. Dad still calls me an idjit over that (but then, he's also a big Trump homer).


----------



## Johnny b

Just got back from renewing my CC permit.
All went smoothly.


----------



## Johnny b

NRA in the news:

Associated Press.

* Lawsuit: NRA illegally funded Trump, other GOP candidates *
https://apnews.com/article/donald-t...020-lawsuits-949361ea529ea37139f401a64c7fa362

Imagine that.....those that claim to defend our constitutional rights are now facing lawsuits for illegally funding campaigns of politicians that appear supportive of overthrowing a legally elected government.


----------



## Couriant

I was starting to read the posts... then I realized that they were from 2017.... haha I guess i never read this thread...

Johnny is there an update on the stats that you first posted?


----------



## Johnny b

Couriant said:


> I was starting to read the posts... then I realized that they were from 2017.... haha I guess i never read this thread...
> 
> Johnny is there an update on the stats that you first posted?


This seems the most comprehensive list of US stats I could find in short order for 2020:

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

I did run across this link with an interesting comment:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country


> Japan boasts a population of more than 127 million people, yet finshed 2019 with a gun death rate of only .02 per 100,000 people. One major factor in this success is that Japan has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. For Japanese citizens to purchase a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written exam, and complete a shooting range test, scoring at least 95% accuracy. Candidates will also receive a mental health evaluation, performed at a hospital, and will have a comprehensive background check done by the government. Only shotguns and rifles can be purchased. The class and exam must be retaken every three years.


( not likely to be mandated in the US )


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> NRA in the news:
> 
> Associated Press.
> 
> * Lawsuit: NRA illegally funded Trump, other GOP candidates *
> https://apnews.com/article/donald-t...020-lawsuits-949361ea529ea37139f401a64c7fa362
> 
> Imagine that.....those that claim to defend our constitutional rights are now facing lawsuits for illegally funding campaigns of politicians that appear supportive of overthrowing a legally elected government.


It goes deeper...
It seems that the Russians were funding the NRA in order to influence the 2016 election:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/11/nra-russia-money-guns-516804


----------



## Couriant

Speaking of guns, right now ABC is live at the McMichael trial: https://abcnews.go.com/live


----------



## Wino

jb - Stringent firearm requirements with good results IMHO. Not gonna happen here in our lifetime (U & Me), but I predict some day it will when the masses get carnage satiated with this slaughter we allow upon ourselves. I own guns, lots of 'em, and I believe in strong gun laws and will not give mine up freely or otherwise. I've never understood why a true "hunter" ever needed a 50/30/20/10/5 round rifle magazine for hunting wild game. On the other hand, I do enjoy punching paper with 15-20 rd magazines for my semi-auto pistols - probably not as much as a 'gansta' get's during a drive by.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> It goes deeper...
> It seems that the Russians were funding the NRA in order to influence the 2016 election:
> https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/11/nra-russia-money-guns-516804


Indeed. That was reported when the Russian 'Red Sparrow' Maria Butina was arrested.


----------



## Johnny b

Wino said:


> jb - Stringent firearm requirements with good results IMHO. Not gonna happen here in our lifetime (U & Me), but I predict some day it will when the masses get carnage satiated with this slaughter we allow upon ourselves. I own guns, lots of 'em, and I believe in strong gun laws and will not give mine up freely or otherwise. I've never understood why a true "hunter" ever needed a 50/30/20/10/5 round rifle magazine for hunting wild game. On the other hand, I do enjoy punching paper with 15-20 rd magazines for my semi-auto pistols - probably not as much as a 'gansta' get's during a drive by.


I feel like-wise.
I grew on a farm. Rifles and shotguns were tools.
City people don't seem to understand the cultural differences.

I wouldn't feel safe at home with out access to a firearm for protection.
Especially now.

I used to enjoy target shooting, but as time passed I became concerned about the types of shooters that began showing up at the ranges.
So I don't frequent the ranges any more.

I wish I could offer solutions, but....not much will be improved until existing laws are enforced.


----------



## SeanLaurence

Couriant said:


> Speaking of guns, right now ABC is live at the McMichael trial: https://abcnews.go.com/live


I can't see how this trial would be interesting. It is pretty clear that the McMichaels killed Ahmaud Arbery. The only question is how much time they will get. Will it be prosecuted as a hate crime? Or 1st or 2nd degree murder. 
Or are we going to watch the Georgia justice system acquit a trio of good ol boys?


----------



## Couriant

SeanLaurence said:


> I can't see how this trial would be interesting. It is pretty clear that the McMichaels killed Ahmaud Arbery. The only question is how much time they will get. Will it be prosecuted as a hate crime? Or 1st or 2nd degree murder.
> Or are we going to watch the Georgia justice system acquit a trio of good ol boys?


I am not sure of the 3rd option... but I wouldn't be surprised.

Hate crime.... i doubt it but then I saw this tidbit (unknown trusted source):


> The white father-son pair accused of murdering Ahmaud Arbery along with one other white man is seeking to *ban from the trial a photo of a vanity plate that was on one of the accused murderer's trucks at the time of the shooting. That plate includes a Confederate emblem* belonging to Travis McMichael, NBC News reported after obtaining a motion filed by attorneys for both Travis and his father Gregory McMichael.
> 
> *The McMichaels claimed in their motion filed Sept. 30 seeking to ban the photo that the state's goal is to "draw the conclusion the Mr. Arbery saw the vanity plate, that he interpreted its meaning, and that he feared the occupants in the truck because of this vanity plate, which is why he ran away from the truck."*


Source: Daily KOS


----------



## SeanLaurence

Couriant said:


> I am not sure of the 3rd option... but I wouldn't be surprised.
> 
> Hate crime.... i doubt it but then I saw this tidbit (unknown trusted source):
> Source: Daily KOS


Yes, well Daily KOS is considered "Far Left" and was founded in 2002.
So I just found out about the Confederate Flag Decal on the truck from a BBC article. - I was only thinking that would demonstrate that they were racists, I didn't even put myself in Arbery's shoes to see that as an obvious sign that they should be avoided.

It should be tried as a hate crime, but I believe that it would have to be taken to a federal court for that to happen. Perhaps under the current DOJ that might happen once they clear the Jan 6 backlog.


----------



## Wino

If these three walk, get wrist slapped, Feds will go for hate crime - I'd put money on that.


----------



## Wino

Johnny b said:


> I feel like-wise.
> I grew on a farm. Rifles and shotguns were tools.
> City people don't seem to understand the cultural differences.
> 
> I wouldn't feel safe at home with out access to a firearm for protection.
> Especially now.
> 
> I used to enjoy target shooting, but as time passed I became concerned about the types of shooters that began showing up at the ranges.
> So I don't frequent the ranges any more.
> 
> I wish I could offer solutions, but....not much will be improved until existing laws are enforced.


I've got solutions, but you'd have to allow my interpretation of the actual 2nd. which doesn't allow willy nilly handing out gun permits to any numb nut knuckle dragger that walks thru a door. Our environment today is a bit different from then to now, life changes, so must laws - even those
"written in stone" need a bath and a rebirth. It's fine as written with sane interpretation!🤪😢 Expectations of that happening are slim to none.


----------



## Johnny b

Wino said:


> I've got solutions, but you'd have to allow my interpretation of the actual 2nd. which doesn't allow willy nilly handing out gun permits to any numb nut knuckle dragger that walks thru a door. Our environment today is a bit different from then to now, life changes, so must laws - even those
> "written in stone" need a bath and a rebirth. It's fine as written with sane interpretation!🤪😢 Expectations of that happening are slim to none.


Do you remember that debate long ago when a troll came into the old debate forum by the screen name 'Mick Jagger'?
I read an article about 6-8 months ago about the real Mick Jagger touring the Internet arguing for confiscation of firearms....about the same timeline as our debate.
Might have been him at TSG.

Anyway, I don't think the 2nd Amendment is vague, but it certainly doesn't grant unqualified access to firearms, much like many seem to believe.
'Mick Jagger' got it wrong then and he's still wrong, as are the militant militias that are terrorist oriented.

It's main purpose originally was to require the allegiance of militias to a legally elected government, in order to protect that government. It was the right of the citizen to be armed for just such an occasion that a militia needed to be formed.


----------



## Couriant

SeanLaurence said:


> Yes, well Daily KOS is considered "Far Left" and was founded in 2002.
> So I just found out about the Confederate Flag Decal on the truck from a BBC article. - I was only thinking that would demonstrate that they were racists, I didn't even put myself in Arbery's shoes to see that as an obvious sign that they should be avoided.
> 
> It should be tried as a hate crime, but I believe that it would have to be taken to a federal court for that to happen. Perhaps under the current DOJ that might happen once they clear the Jan 6 backlog.


Thank you. I wasn't sure as there are too many 'news sites' to keep up with. But to me it is clear that the Confederate flag is synonymous with racial hate towards African American and while we don't know for sure that's what he saw, the possibility is there. In the live link the reporter was mentioning how he was shot in the chest twice and in the wrist where the wrist was 'blown off'... there is 0% probability that those two was going to keep him alive.



Wino said:


> If these three walk, get wrist slapped, Feds will go for hate crime - I'd put money on that.


I don't know if the third guy would get the same verdict since he was recording it but I haven't seen much about that guy. Having said that, there should be no way that both McMichaels should get away with it. There is nothing to suggest this was going to be civil/peaceful.



Wino said:


> I've got solutions, but you'd have to allow my interpretation of the actual 2nd. which doesn't allow willy nilly handing out gun permits to any numb nut knuckle dragger that walks thru a door. *Our environment today is a bit different from then to now, life changes, so must laws - even those
> "written in stone" need a bath and a rebirth. It's fine as written with sane interpretation!*🤪😢 Expectations of that happening are slim to none.


I agree



Johnny b said:


> Do you remember that debate long ago when a troll came into the old debate forum by the screen name 'Mick Jagger'?
> I read an article about 6-8 months ago about the real Mick Jagger touring the Internet arguing for confiscation of firearms....about the same timeline as our debate.
> Might have been him at TSG.
> 
> ..


I couldn't find him in the member list. I would have thought his account will still be listed... i could have checked but it could also possible it was someone else that is copying him.


----------



## Johnny b

Couriant said:


> ...........................
> 
> I couldn't find him in the member list. I would have thought his account will still be listed... i could have checked but it could also possible it was someone else that is copying him.


At the time, I thought he was just a troll.
About 12+ years ago or so, his name and identical posts were frequent at many other websites.
Doesn't matter, he was wrong, too lol!


----------



## Johnny b

An opinion piece, but relevant and to the point:

* Guns aren't the problem. People like Rep. Lauren Boebert and the NRA are. *
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-boebert-nra-problem-gun-violence/6439591001/

Guns are inanimate objects with no will of their own.
The major problem lies with the will of the person wielding a weapon and how they intend to use it.


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> An opinion piece, but relevant and to the point:
> 
> * Guns aren't the problem. People like Rep. Lauren Boebert and the NRA are. *
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-boebert-nra-problem-gun-violence/6439591001/
> 
> Guns are inanimate objects with no will of their own.
> The major problem lies with the will of the person wielding a weapon and how they intend to use it.


My understanding is that there are more regulations in place to own a pet in many states than there are to own a gun. Perhaps if there were more responsibilities demanded of gun owners, there would be fewer issues.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> My understanding is that there are more regulations in place to own a pet in many states than there are to own a gun. Perhaps if there were more responsibilities demanded of gun owners, there would be fewer issues.





> My understanding is that there are more regulations in place to own a pet in many states than there are to own a gun.


I doubt the act of purchasing is, but care and responsibility for a pet no doubt.



> Perhaps if there were more responsibilities demanded of gun owners, there would be fewer issues.


Such as?


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> I doubt the act of purchasing is, but care and responsibility for a pet no doubt.
> 
> Such as?


How about registration for anything more automatic than a bolt action rifle? Handguns, semi, automatics and fully automatics would have to be registered.

Rules for storing Weapons and ammunition securely.

A requirement to belong to a gun club where safety and proficiency courses need to be passed periodically in order to maintain the privilege.

It seems quaint to be concerning ourselves with the 4 dead in the latest school shooting when 1300 people per day are currently dying of Covid in the US.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> How about registration for anything more automatic than a bolt action rifle? Handguns, semi, automatics and fully automatics would have to be registered.
> 
> Rules for storing Weapons and ammunition securely.
> 
> A requirement to belong to a gun club where safety and proficiency courses need to be passed periodically in order to maintain the privilege.
> 
> It seems quaint to be concerning ourselves with the 4 dead in the latest school shooting when 1300 people per day are currently dying of Covid in the US.





> How about registration for anything more automatic than a bolt action rifle? Handguns, semi, automatics and fully automatics would have to be registered.


Gun registration is already a federal mandate when purchasing.
But, it's inefficient and often the State authorities ( usually a sheriff ) don't/won't or inefficiently report the data.
I'm not against gun registration.
It simply doesn't work well when when it's not observed.



> Rules for storing Weapons and ammunition securely.


A common sense idea for safety, but I don't see how that affects an intended use.



> A requirement to belong to a gun club where safety and proficiency courses need to be passed periodically in order to maintain the privilege.


Sounds good......but.....
We already have much of that ....the NRA.....and I don't think I need to comment on how poorly they address gun violence.

The US has a destructive gun culture that goes beyond personal security.
A variety of issues from mental instability to political activity.
How do we regulate that?
Is it even possible?


----------



## Couriant

Johnny b said:


> How do we regulate that?
> *Is it even possible?*


No. it's not possible. Just look at The Crumbley's. People will do what they will do.

Plus each state has their own laws that does or does not punish the right people.

Is the NRA dissolved now?


----------



## Johnny b

Couriant said:


> No. it's not possible. Just look at The Crumbley's. People will do what they will do.
> 
> Plus each state has their own laws that does or does not punish the right people.
> 
> Is the NRA dissolved now?


That's what I've been thinking, James.
A correction is needed in regards to personal codes of morality and ethics.
That won't likely come by way of legislation, imo.

I'm not aware of the NRA breaking up.
What have you heard?


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> That's what I've been thinking, James.
> A correction is needed in regards to personal codes of morality and ethics.
> That won't likely come by way of legislation, imo.
> 
> I'm not aware of the NRA breaking up.
> What have you heard?


NRA is under threat to be dissolved because they are registered in NY and Letitia James is coming after them for financial and managerial misconduct.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...lean-up-misconduct-must-be-dissolved-n-y-says


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> NRA is under threat to be dissolved because they are registered in NY and Letitia James is coming after them for financial and managerial misconduct.
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...lean-up-misconduct-must-be-dissolved-n-y-says


I've read similar, but not seen anything positive accomplished so far.


----------



## RT

This is not really relevant in the way this thead is going, but speaking of guns -

Got to fire a .350 Legend caliber today.
Wasn't aware of this round, but the rifle was cool made by Savage Arms, .
Modern synthetic stock with a cushioned shoulder pad, my son and grandson were sighting it in.
If target practice is your thing, then my grandson wins on this day.
Two shots in the center circle at ~60 yards in dim light.

Bolt action, max of 4 rounds about carbine sized ,,,if you're shooting and have to rack the bolt you can easily lo0se the target, that little feller did well, and was also on point with gun safety


----------



## Johnny b

A positive move:

* Biden announces crackdown on 'ghost guns' *
https://news.yahoo.com/biden-ghost-gun-crackdown-atf-nominee-193416343.html


----------



## SeanLaurence

Another Day, Another Shooting.
This one get to be high profile because the Brooklyn subway is so familiar to so many people, including NYC news organisations.
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/12/1092286633/brooklyn-nyc-subway-station-shooting


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> Another Day, Another Shooting.
> This one get to be high profile because the Brooklyn subway is so familiar to so many people, including NYC news organisations.
> https://www.npr.org/2022/04/12/1092286633/brooklyn-nyc-subway-station-shooting


Mass shootings have become epidemic.
I read about new ones frequently.

This won't help reduce the violence:

* Ohio's new concealed carry law takes effect this week: What both sides are saying *
https://www.daytondailynews.com/cri...-sides-are-saying/WI6ERBQ3WZFNXK4Y7SGFKXODR4/



> A new law allowing Ohioans to carry a hidden gun without a concealed-carry permit takes effect Monday, and both backers and opponents of the legislation are standing firm.


Not only will there be no regulation on who concealed carry in Ohio, there will be a lack of mandatory gun safety courses at the same time.
IMO, a bad mix. 
Gun owners with bad intentions and gun owners unfamiliar with safety considerations.

With our society so fractured, morally and ethically as it currently is, this seems a bad way to reduce gun violence.

I have a cc license. It wasn't difficult to acquire. It makes sense.


----------



## Wino

Texas did same last year. Pure stupid. Was always amusing to go to range and watch the newbies "gangsta" shooting. I've left firing line several times due to idiots NOT pointing down range when attempting to clear a jam. I'll keep paying for my license as one that appreciates being cleared for ownership and LEGALLY carry as I know which end of the gun is important. Not to mention no BGC required with active license when purchasing new gun.


----------



## RT

Wino said:


> Was always amusing to go to range and watch the newbies "gangsta" shooting. I've left firing line several times *due to idiots NOT pointing down range when attempting to clear a jam.* I'll keep paying for my license as one that appreciates being cleared for ownership and LEGALLY carry as *I know which end of the gun is important*


 I hear ya man!
In that respect "gangsta" shooting, (or rather aiming) - for it's not even practical at reasonable target range - might be at point blank range, but seems an affectation of movie hype meant for the intimidating effect. (accompanied with loud vocal threats and cursing)
Hand guns are not designed for that posture. You can't aim, nor properly control recoil.

Clearing a jam...well it's still a *loaded* firearm, so you'd best be aware...just because it didn't fire once does not mean it's not still a dangerous weapon.
Perhaps the casing did not eject and there's no bullet, but you always have assume, even if you drop the mag, the muzzle points to a clear down range.


----------



## Couriant

daily laugh and pause for thought:


----------



## RT

Long time ago there was this guy in the Outback, claimed to be a good shooter...
well, I reckon so.....
(PS - love Alan Rickman  )


----------



## RT

This maybe old news for you guys....

*UNBELIEVABLE!!! Woman Stops Grizzly Attack With 25 Caliber Pistol !* 









"Quote" from the news...

"This is a story of self-control and marksmanship with an itsy bitsy shooter by a woman against a fierce predator.
What is the smallest caliber you trust to protect yourself?
While out hiking in Alberta, Canada with my boyfriend, we were surprised by a huge grizzly bear charging at us from out of nowhere. She must have been protecting her cubs because she was extremely aggressive.
If I had not had my little Beretta Jetfire with me I would not be here today!
Just one shot to my boyfriend's knee cap was all it took. The bear got him and I was able to escape by just walking away at a brisk pace."

It's the same story as "I don't have to out run the bear, I just have to out run you."

🤷


----------

