How many more times?

[pachi2007]

>>>We need to remember the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution was put in place with the intention that the people are free to stay armed to protect against a possible tyrannical government.
A government that so takes away those rights is exactly the government this amendment was put in place to protect against.

So that´s why everybody have guns? Just in case US goberment becomes a tyrannical goberment? Will all these people take theirs guns and kill them all to bring freedom back? I don´t want to offend anybody but  imho I think the 2nd amendment is a little bit outdated. Why is so hard to change a little, move with the times and not get stuck in the past?

 

[pachi2007]

The National Rifle Association (NRA) wants to make a "meaningful contribution" to prevent gun violence?

Here's one idea: the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The United Nations is preparing to finalize the treaty, which would help stem the flow of weapons to human rights abusers. And world leaders will negotiate and vote on it in March.

We can all agree, children -- no matter where they live -- must be kept safe from gun related violence.

Unfortunately, in so many places around the world, that is not happening as a result of the unregulated global arms trade. There are tens of thousands of children forcibly recruited right now by governments’ armed forces and by non-state armed groups who are often armed with weapons irresponsibly traded by governments and private corporations. Children are also part of the 26 million people who have been displaced by armed conflict fueled by guns.

Despite being the largest exporter of small arms and conventional weapons, the U.S. has not been a leader in the effort to establish this treaty due to a campaign of misinformation and lies – orchestrated by the NRA—to force the U.S. government to oppose and weaken the ATT.

The NRA has asserted that the ATT would infringe on the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the right to bear arms. But, in fact, the ATT will have no bearing on domestic gun ownership, as it deals exclusively with the flow of weapons between – not within – countries.

Let's be clear about something. There is virtually no regulation of the international arms trade. Governments and groups known to commit atrocities and abuses can buy weapons traded on the open market and use them with impunity.

This must stop. The ATT could save hundreds of lives every day by establishing common global standards for how countries import, export and transfer conventional weapons.

By dropping its opposition to the ATT, the NRA has an opportunity to help keep guns out of the hands of those who routinely target children and others—saving countless lives around the world.

 

[JohnRoberts]

JR,
While I fully realise that we are never going to agree on this, I don't think you can use the argument of Egypt's months old democracy and say that might happen in the US, that is a lame point and looks like its made just to say something, you will have to do better than that to convince me.

I don't expect to convince you. I'm not trying. I just can't leave points unchallenged that I don't believe.

What I didn't want to say directly and chose to put between the lines, is that as a member of the circa 49% minority in the US who voted against President Obama, I do not feel like he is representing all of us. Our form of government is not a winner takes all the spoils but supposed to be for the good of the nation. All the people in the nation.

The absolute power thing has not applied to Lincoln, Roosevelt or Eisenhower I'm sure, maybe Nixon though.  Kennedy and Clinton had other issues with lust, but not for power per se.

I do not want to overstate the complaint about using executive orders. Every president has received criticism, but Obama has used executive orders to change illegal immigration policy, when congress didn't pass the dream act, has made recess appoints while congress was not in recess (ignoring the rules), and now is threatening gun control by executive order, anticipating that congress will not demur.

Our government is set up based on a separation of powers so that one body does not posses too much power that could lead to abuse (not that unlike your system of government). 

So you do subscribe to American paranoia then, just take the Joe McCarthy fiasco for evidence.

Name calling does not promote your position, if anything it is evidence of a weak argument.

I think that some of your leaders want to modify gun ownership because they are embarrassed when they talk to other world leaders, unlike yourself, many Americans don't have passports and get to see how the rest of the world lives.

I believe you are correct. Our chief executive has demonstrated that with his apology tour when first elected. I would prefer a leader that didn't want to be more like Europe. We are different in numerous ways. They are free to relocate there. Depardieu's old house is vacant.

I have visited almost every continent (no plans to visit Antarctica) while I have only lived in the US. I am not ignorant about the rest of the world, or how they view us. They are entitled to their opinions too.

I agree with your economic assessment and the exporting of jobs overseas.  All of us have to step up to the next level.  A government should never create a Nanny State, I agree, but it should show leadership and do its best to create an environment for its people to prosper much as Roosevelt did with his new deal.

Some agreement is good... However opinions still vary, the new deal was the beginning of our getting a little pregnant with socialism.. many ills can be traced to changes made back then. Making health insurance deductible for business was a thinly veiled strategy to allow big business to compensate organized labor higher without violating wage/price controls. Government cronyism with the automobile industry dates to back then and is responsible at least complicit in recent weakness.

What I mean by a rigged system is this: When parents are wealthy/intelligent/gifted, it is so much easier for their children to be successful because there is a proven pathway/work ethic/funding available.

Not sure how the government can insure smarter parents. It would be better if the government did not incetivize so many single parent households. While I do not blame government for the current breakdown in family values, once again I find them complicit. Giving children a better trajectory would start with a better home environment.

I was raised by a single parent after my father died, and my mother surely stepped up. She got a full time job, while nurturing us and providing good moral example. I know I was blessed to have two smart parents. This is the luck of the draw. We don't get to choose our parents. My personal life line while far from optimal did not make me weaker or disadvantage me. IMO.

If they screw that up then they deserve to fail.  None of my parents went to university or did anything airy fairy like sound recording or music, it definitely set me back 20 years I would say, and that's without anything really bad happening in my childhood, so childhood circumstances do affect us, its not just about getting off your butt.
best
DaveP

I take full responsibility for my outcome, while I appreciate the opportunity provided me by being born in the US. I do not perceive better opportunity living anywhere else, while i am concerned we are making it hard for the golden goose here to breath.

JR

PS: My dad was an "airy fairy" recording engineer for RCA records in NYC when he died much too young from cancer...  I'd give my left gonad to sit down with him and have an adult conversation. Those of you with living parents (not me) cherish them while you can.  My mom was a nude model for a mannequin maker in NYC. I fear my parents were way cooler than I could ever be. RIP

 

[DaveP]

JR,
My use of the word paranoia was as a description of a collective national condition, it was not name calling, I have too much respect for Americans for that, especially you.

Your family story was touching and amazing and proves my point.  You had parents with intelligence, get-up-and-go, artistic flair and cool, its no wonder you made good.

I'm not sure you understood my "airy fairy" comment.  That was not me talking, that was the type of comment I got because of my parents limited aspirations.  The only world they knew (because of the depression) was that you needed a trade/skill/apprentiship to stave off disaster, I don't blame them for that, that was their life experience and they had no other to pass on to me.  All I'm saying is that some parents give their children the confidence of infinite possibilities and suggestions to achieve them, mine did not, that's all.  The job of government (in the UK anyway) is to ensure a level playing field for all, not sure if you call that socialism or equal opportunities or the American Dream.  It took me a long time to realise that I was capable of going further than they thought I could and that's all about self-confidence and self belief.  It is because of this that I empathise with people from deprived backgrounds.
best
DaveP

 

[qmp audio]

Will all these people take theirs guns and kill them all to bring freedom back?

I doubt that will happen anytime soon in the US,  but its happening all over the world currently.

 

[pachi2007]

I doubt that will happen anytime soon in the US,  but its happening all over the world currently.
[/quote]

I didn´t know. I guess there are 2nd amendments all over the world.

 

[living sounds]

What I mean by a rigged system is this: When parents are wealthy/intelligent/gifted, it is so much easier for their children to be successful because there is a proven pathway/work ethic/funding available.  If they screw that up then they deserve to fail. 

This is what Chris Hayes's book I linked to is all about. The US system more than any other is supposed, designed and believed to be a true meritocracy, but has since the 80s very much strayed from this noble and ultimately rational goal.

We've got a big equality-in-opportunity problem here in Germany (much of it by design, unfortunately), and I don't have to tell you about the class system in Britain, I'm sure.

But in the US because of the assumption of equaly opportunity these inequalities have less inbuild compensations, and the real-life distortions that now very much exist play themselves out far worse than in comparable western democracies.

There are several parallel trends and causes, but long-term this is the most important one to address, I think.

 

[JohnRoberts]

It might be a good idea to take a step backwards and rethink what is most import problem(s) to address.

It is human nature to take everything we have for granted and whine about how much better it could be. Of course we can credit those whiners who were also doers with pretty much all human advancement our perspective about what deserves collective attention is often distorted by our inability to move in different directions at the same time.

It is a worthwhile argument to discuss economic outcomes but a false premise to ASSume government has much control over where all the chips land.  IMO government can either take a light hand approach to prevent the excesses of capitalism while enjoying the growth that that does raise all boats (we are arguing about how much the different boats rise). Or, government can take a heavy handed approach and engineer some perceived desirable result through a managed economy. 

I don't think anybody dispute that the goals of a managed economy are not desirable. Capitalism is messy, just like democracy. The flaw in all managed economies is that the technocrats are just not as smart as they think they are, and can't possibly utilize scare resources as efficiently as millions of individuals making their own decisions in their own best interest.

This is a very old argument, better made by others than I so I won't bore you with more.

====

Back to the theme of what is so important that it commands immediate attention, I still find this (gun control, or avoiding future crazed shooting sprees) a convenient tragedy being milked to promote an old agenda, not some new recent crisis. If anything the only element of this that feels new is a cultural trend toward increasing amounts of gratuitous violence.  This too is an old argument (make love not war) but I would gladly substitute more sex for less violence in popular culture. The movies that were in the pipeline before this latest high profile incident, reveal an uncomfortable amount of grisly violence. Note: I don't mean sexual violence, as the recent attack of a young couple in India highlights is also troubling. Death is always more oppressive than feeling our paycheck is not as large as it should be. 

-------
There is a group of economists who meet every few year and generate a list, prioritizing what they believe are the world's top problems worth focusing attention and resources on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Consensus#Outcome
from 2012 meeting

1-Bundled micronutrient interventions to fight hunger and improve education
2-Expanding the Subsidy for Malaria Combination Treatment
3-Expanded Childhood Immunization Coverage
4-Deworming of Schoolchildren, to improve educational and health outcomes
5-Expanding Tuberculosis Treatment
6-R&D to Increase Yield Enhancements, to decrease hunger, fight biodiversity destruction, and lessen the effects of climate change
7-Investing in Effective Early Warning Systems to protect populations against natural disaster
8-Strengthening Surgical Capacity
9-Hepatitis B Immunization
10-Using Low‐Cost Drugs in the case of Acute Heart Attacks in poorer nations (these are already available in developed countries)
11-Salt Reduction Campaign to reduce chronic disease
12-Geo‐Engineering R&D into the feasibility of solar radiation management
13-Conditional Cash Transfers for School Attendance
14-Accelerated HIV Vaccine R&D
15-Extended Field Trial of Information Campaigns on the Benefits From Schooling
16-Borehole and Public Hand Pump Intervention

======
I can't say I completely grasp what #16 is about but that list is interesting for the number of things not on it, that out politicians choose to waste their time and our money on.

JR

 

[lolo-m]

All I would like to say is that firearms have been created by man to kill from a longer distance, more securely for the shooter...
Try to kill someone with a knife and with a gun... What is simplest, more efficient ?
Do you think a firearm is a good thing to give to everybody ?

PS: A friend of mine went insane a long time ago and killed a baby-sitter with a knife and cut the throat of a little girl (she didn't die)... Hopefully, he didn't had a gun as, knowing where his sickness brang him, he would have done a real slaughter close to the one we're talking about... But firearms are difficult to find in France because of the law.

 

[DaveP]

You are right Lolo,
But even the murder of 27 little children and teachers is not enough for some Americans to admit they may have got gun ownership wrong, they prefer to arm the teachers, bullet proof all the glass, harden the doors etc. etc.  Their right to bear arms is more precious to them as these pages show.  It all seems bizarre to us Europeans, but they are coming at it from a perspective for which we have no equivalent.  They have a mistrust of government that does not exist in the same way over here.  We may think our governments are incompetent or out of touch with reality, but they think in terms of conspiracy theories and survivalist mentalities.  Maybe its down to too much Hollywood or a left over from the Civil War or Wild West, who knows.  I have tried to explore these themes to better understand their point but I am not much the wiser, I'm afraid.
best
DaveP

 

[mouse]

quote
It all seems bizarre to us Europeans, but they are coming at it from a perspective for which we have no equivalent.  They have a mistrust of government that does not exist in the same way over here.  We may think our governments are incompetent or out of touch with reality, but they think in terms of conspiracy theories and survivalist mentalities.
end

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF

 

[JohnRoberts]

quote
It all seems bizarre to us Europeans, but they are coming at it from a perspective for which we have no equivalent.  They have a mistrust of government that does not exist in the same way over here.  We may think our governments are incompetent or out of touch with reality, but they think in terms of conspiracy theories and survivalist mentalities.
end

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF

I don't consider myself a survivalist or tin foil hat, conspiracy theorist, but it's all relative.

Our country was founded based on a honest distrust of the risk associated with a too powerful central government. This is who we are (at least those in touch with our roots).

While a scenario of personally defending ourselves against a tyrannical federal government with (our) personal sidearms seems from a different time and place, for many people defending themselves from a a lawless element inside the community seems compelling. I don't think the second amendment specifically addressed the right to self defense that is implicit in the broader right to pursue life, and liberty, and happiness. (while happiness is kind of vague, meaning whatever isn't specifically prohibited). 

I am surely repeating myself but we seem to be arguing about the wrong stuff...IMO

The gun violence that occurs every day, and goes mostly unreported by the national media, is not legal gun owners behaving badly, but criminals who are not very concerned about breaking laws. 

An equally sensitive subject is personal privacy, but through the lens of these high profile shootings, it seems the mental health system has been prevented from disclosing useful information about potentially dangerous individuals (to themselves and others).

The HIPAA ruling in 1996 makes it up to a $50k fine and risk of hard time in jail for releasing private mental health information without authorization from the individual. Of course the law say's it's OK to release information if a crime is actually happening, but there is huge gray area with trying to predict when a disturbed individual becomes an actual threat. Most health professionals take the safer personal path of keeping quiet, even when our after tragedy reviews find lots of warning signs. (We need some of those "precogs" from minority report).

I saw a mention in the newspaper this week about a shooting in Paris, but that was only terrorists so not part of this gun control discussion. I would expect Paris to have pretty strict gun controls. 

JR

PS: Taking a step back and looking at the strategies and messaging, one disturbing statement, that gun control should be pursued even "if it only saves one life". That is a pretty empowering concept for government.  Think of how many lives they could "save" by raising the driving age to 21 YO, and reducing national speed limits to 45 MPH. Far more than one soul.  As i mentioned in an earlier post from economists prioritizing other ways we could save far more lives. We need to resist this hyperbolic disproportionate revisit of an old agenda (gun control). There are many lives we could save with similar time and effort.

 

[DaveP]

Maybe most of Europe's crazies emigrated to the US, maybe they didn't, but its certainly true that they have far greater access to weapons in the US, to amplify their actions, than they do over here.

Our "care in the community" people stop taking their medicine, hear voices and stab a few unfortunate innocents or push them under trains, what they can't do is buy guns and kill dozens.  The only time when that happens is with registered gun owners who go over the edge, which is very few and far between, maybe one every decade.  But we are just going over well ploughed ground here and its getting pointless.

Maybe its a size issue?  We are packed closer together over here and central government doesn't seem quite so remote.  Maybe your people are say Texans first and Americans second, does that make sense?  Is that where the distrust comes from?
best
DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

Maybe most of Europe's crazies emigrated to the US, maybe they didn't, but its certainly true that they have far greater access to weapons in the US, to amplify their actions, than they do over here.

America was initially settled by individuals escaping from religious persecution, and other disagreements with the groups in power, so perhaps a little rebellious form the beginning.

Our "care in the community" people stop taking their medicine, hear voices and stab a few unfortunate innocents or push them under trains, what they can't do is buy guns and kill dozens.  The only time when that happens is with registered gun owners who go over the edge, which is very few and far between, maybe one every decade.  But we are just going over well ploughed ground here and its getting pointless.

This is a popular argument and while valid in the extreme, just like my lowering the speed limits would reduce deaths, we have to choose where to draw our lines to manage the cost/benefit. I suspect this cost/benefit argument is distorted by hyperbolic arguments and personal preferences, opinions vary. 

Maybe its a size issue?  We are packed closer together over here and central government doesn't seem quite so remote.  Maybe your people are say Texans first and Americans second, does that make sense?  Is that where the distrust comes from?
best
DaveP

As i already mentioned the distrust of a too powerful government came from an extensive study of all types of governments that existed before we were founded, as documented in the Federalist Papers, written hundreds of years ago. 

JR

 

[sodderboy]

I would point out to the "incredulous Europeans" that their soil is home to the graves of millions who had no Bill of Rights, and hundreds of thousands more who died fighting the consequences. 
The Bill of Rights is being diluted by the decade in the name of "progress" against the will of the people, half of whom have more pressing things to do than vote a few times per year.  Sad.
Mike

 

[mylesgm]

As i already mentioned the distrust of a too powerful government came from an extensive study of all types of governments that existed before we were founded, as documented in the Federalist Papers, written hundreds of years ago. 

JR
[/quote]

Australia brought in gun control about 15 years ago and since that point there have been no mass shootings (a mass shooting was what triggered gun control) and a severe reduction in gun related deaths.  Perhaps if Americans did an honest and extensive study in to current governments and regulation and learnt from the last 200 years of history they would see that the evidence actually lies with gun control reducing gun related deaths.

 

[DaveP]

Sodderboy,
I don't really understand your point.

Our history is also your history too, as your ancestors must have come from somewhere in Europe.  As an independent country you are only ~250 years old, whereas ours are more than 10 times that age.  It took us thousands of years to arrive at our system of government, and your founding fathers had the benefit of learning from earlier mistakes.  The "graves of millions" were caused by international wars, not civilians shooting each other, and a fully armed civilian population could not have prevented WW1 or WW2.

People in the western world have more human rights nowadays than at any time in our history, even to the point of lawyers being able to subvert legitimate extradition procedures, so I don't really understand where you are coming from.  Are you saying you want things to return to 1760?  That would mean a return to slavery as well as living like the Amish so I guess you are not entirely anti progress.
best
DaveP

 

[living sounds]

And it's not as if the last 200 years in the US were a time of peacefull bliss (ask the Native Americans for example). Humans are rather violent by nature, the question is how to deal with it effectively.

 

[JohnRoberts]

And it's not as if the last 200 years in the US were a time of peacefull bliss (ask the Native Americans for example). Humans are rather violent by nature, the question is how to deal with it effectively.

I knew I could count on you for such a reminder.

To put a point on this and some perspective with a rather spectacular statistic there have been more homicides in Chicago, than troops killed in Afghanistan (228 to 144, at time of the research in june of last year).

I repeat, inner city gun violence where there are already gun control laws, is an economic problem related to a weak economy.

Yes if we turn all guns into plowshares it will reduce "gun" killings, but killings will go on. We need to correct the root cause of the problem not the symptom, and human's are indeed violent.

The hypocrisy of our politicians who surround themselves with armed guards for protection is palpable. Make the capitol a gun-free zone and see how long it takes before someone gets shot there. The laws mainly affect law abiding citizens (aka victims), not criminals.

Lets focus on the thousands of gun deaths, not the tens... and not fall into the easy answer thinking politicians serve up. Making laws are the only tool in politician's tool kit, so like a worker with only a hammer in his kit, every problem looks like a nail, to be fixed by passing another law.. Like a puppy trying to please it's master, it's what they do (and waste our money).

JR

 

[living sounds]

I repeat, inner city gun violence where there are already gun control laws, is an economic problem related to a weak economy.

As much as it is a problem of (especially) young men with little opportunities (it comes down to inequality rather than the economy as a whole), the availibility of guns is a big part of the problem. You can buy a gun at a show in Arizona with no background check, no license etc. and take it to Chicago, NY, L.A. That's where the guns come from.

There's a considerable problem with income inequality, lack of opportunities and youth joblessness in the UK, but the rate of gun violence is very, very low.