What does it take?

[tom b]

As a teacher I was highly protective of the children in my care.

Being in a country that has 300,000,000 guns would be so $@#*ed.

Being in an environment with automatic assault rifles and high capacity hand guns available would be a nightmare.

But hey, America is the land of the free and…

[John Koerner]

My brother committed suicide, it was a devastating act that brought about the breakdown of my family. As a teacher for twenty years plus my primary goal was to protect the children in my care and make sure that they were civil citizens and that they didn't harm themselves or others.

My best friend, since the 4th grade, committed suicide with a Glock .40.

I still own a Glock .40.

As devastated I was to hear about it, and bawl my eyes out at his funeral, it was his mental illness that caused him to pull the trigger ... not any "quality" about the gun.

He stopped taking lithium ... and could have used any number of other ways to exit this world.

I've taught hundreds of refugee and migrant children in Sydney's western suburbs. I've seen how gun control and public education can be highly successful. I just despair that I keep on hearing about mass murders in America, particularly in schools.

Mass shootings in American schools come from many factors: 1) the fact there is no family unity, no guidance; 2) mothers work, fathers work, no one stays home with the kids to teach them values and provide direction; 3) everyone wants to be a "social media star" ... be on the news ... get their 15 minutes, etc.

Again, it falls back on Permissiveness, No Standards of Conduct, no Accountability.

Once again, "What does it take?".

A return back to family values.

Mothers staying at home with their own kids (instead of dropping them off to 'daycare centers');

Parents taking their roll as parents as the most serious job they have: raising productive adults, as opposed to "adult children" having sex and creating "children because they can."

Parents teaching their kids to value the physical world, their relationships with others, instead of ignoring their kids and let them stray far from reality into the twisted corridors of their own minds, disconnected from everything.

But, if the above isn't achieved, then what it will take are teachers also carrying, being trained in gun use, to quickly and effectively DOA any defective students who bring guns to school.

[Peter McLennan]

But, if the above isn't achieved, then what it will take are teachers also carrying, being trained in gun use, to quickly and effectively DOA any defective students who bring guns to school.

OMFG.

[Robert Roaldi]

My earlier questions were not addressed to you specifically Slobodan, although the thread placement implied it. My mistake. By "you" I meant the "royal" you, it was a rhetorical flourish.

But to address one issue you raised, I seem to remember from somewhere that roughly 20% of blacks are involved in crime vs 10% of whites. This may be wrong, of course, but good luck figuring out what's true in this maelstrom. But if it is roughly true-ish, then it's hardly the case that a majority of crime is committed by African-Americans given that they are only 13% of the population. Although that might be the general perception since black crime is all anyone ever talks about. So then why are so many unarmed blacks males shot and killed while they are not committing crimes? It begs an answer. You imply that it may be because they are dis-proportionally involved in crime, although I fail to understand why that would explain why they are being shot so much. Are there a lot of white petty criminals being shot to death in what would ordinarily not be non-lethal interactions? If there aren't, why not?

In any case, I'm not expecting comprehensive answers to any of these questions. They're just my way of expressing dismay. The modern US state seems to be a place where lots of people want grade school teachers to pack heat and a place where it's ok (in some states) to blast and kill without cause a stranger ringing on your door. Is this really the kind of place people want to live in? And why all the fear? Is all of America such a dangerous place? If this keeps up, it will turn into a place that no one gives a damn about, a place not worth living in, it seems to me.

I understand that the "stand your ground" or "home is your castle" ideas are the law. But really, is this where you want to be? What's the upside?

Seems to me, imo, whatever the US is doing now, is not working. Whenever threads like this come up on this forum, we just get a microcosm of the same paralysis afflicting your governance structures.

But two good questions have come up? How many americans want control of firearms. We've heard from all the lobby groups already, but what do the people really want? And why is the CDC forbidden from examining gun questions? It's a bizarre state of affairs when the citizenry is not permitted to ask questions because of lobbying from some sectors of the economy.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

....what it will take are teachers also carrying, being trained in gun use, to quickly and effectively DOA any defective students who bring use guns to in school.

There.

[John Koerner]

OMFG.

Sorry to alarm you.

Some people are born defective. No moral compass. No compassion for others. Same as some are born without legs, hands, or arms.

Physical defects are easier to spot than moral/mental defects, but make no mistake some folks come out with mental/moral amputations as well.

I bred dogs for 25 years. Bred and selected for temperament, among other things.

Never had a single dog bite anyone in a quarter-century, with specimens shipped all over the world. Again, standards.

On the flipside, I bought 2 different dogs, from another breeder. Both specimens from same breeding (but different litters). One was a puppy, the other 2 years old.

The two-year-old was night blind and people-mean. I put her down.

The puppy was raised as I raised hundreds of other pups ... love, socialization, affection ... and yet also grew-up people mean. Put him down as well.

Sometimes it's nurture, how they're raised, but sometimes individuals simply come-out ****ed up genetically.

So, yes, whether it is nature or nurture, a student who comes to school with a gun ... and starts opening fire ... needs to be taken out.

You can hide, you can debate the morality (which is how casualties pile-up) ... or you could take the ****er out and debate "why" he was like that later.

[John Koerner]

There.

Thanks for the correction.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

My earlier questions were not addressed to you specifically Slobodan, although the thread placement implied it. My mistake. By "you" I meant the "royal" you, it was a rhetorical flourish....

Robert, no problem, I did not take it personally, as I often use the rhetorical "you" myself. And I think we managed to keep this thread reasonably civilized so far.

... But to address one issue you raised, I seem to remember from somewhere that roughly 20% of blacks are involved in crime vs 10% of whites. This may be wrong, of course, but good luck figuring out what's true in this maelstrom. But if it is roughly true-ish, then it's hardly the case that a majority of crime is committed by African-Americans given that they are only 13% of the population. Although that might be the general perception since black crime is all anyone ever talks about. So then why are so many unarmed blacks males shot and killed while they are not committing crimes? It begs an answer. You imply that it may be because they are dis-proportionally involved in crime, although I fail to understand why that would explain why they are being shot so much. Are there a lot of white petty criminals being shot to death in what would ordinarily not be non-lethal interactions? If there aren't, why not?...

Whatever the numbers, whether it is 2x or 7x (and I've seen that number too - that is why I use the term "disproportionally," to avoid squabbling about the exactness), the issue you raised (in bold) is rather a matter of wrong statistical aggregation, i.e., mixing wrong statistical pools of data. A lot is lost when things are looked at a sufficiently high level of abstraction (i.e., at the 13% of the population level). Crime is actually localized. As I mentioned before, it would be, for instance in Chicago, its south and west side. There, black-on-black crime probably approaches 80-90% of all crime in that area. That is where police is going and there is when killings happen. When police is faced with such a high level of expected violent resistance, mistakes happen and unarmed people get killed by accident. This also raises the issue that it is only after the fact established that they were unarmed. A slightest sign (to a police officer) that arms might be present would change their response, again in that area.

...Is this really the kind of place people want to live in?...

Apparently, as people are coming here in droves, legally and illegally. America lives in "ghettos" - "ghettos" for the rich (gated communities), "ghettos" for the middle class (suburbs and safe downtown areas), etc. And there it is safe.

... But two good questions have come up? How many americans want control of firearms. We've heard from all the lobby groups already, but what do the people really want?...

The consequence of long threads is that people do not read every page and every post. I already posted this before:

Since 1990, Gallup has been asking Americans whether they think gun control laws should be stricter.

The answer, increasingly, is that they don't.

"Less than half of Americans, 47%, say they favor stricter laws covering the sale of firearms, similar to views found last year," Gallup says. "But this percentage is significantly below the 58% recorded in 2012 after the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, spurred a nationwide debate about the possibility of more stringent gun control laws. Thirty-eight percent of Americans say these laws should be kept as they are now, and 14% say they should be made less strict."

Note that the support for stricter gun controls is trending down, not up, since 2000:

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

[...]That is where police is going and there is when killings happen. When police is faced with such a high level of expected violent resistance, mistakes happen and unarmed people get killed by accident. This also raises the issue that it is only after the fact established that they were unarmed. A slightest sign (to a police officer) that arms might be present would change their response, again in that area.

Hi Slobodan,

Again, then why not reduce the things that can be influenced? Too much of what I hear, and have experienced when I stayed with families and business professionals in the USA, is exactly in line with what I learned in a multiple day Cross-Cultural Skills training I took (because I have worked in 3 different countries for one company, it was a condition I posed before accepting the job).

Generalizing (I know...), Americans are tough on punishment (e.g. Capital punishment) but poor on prevention (and everything is commercialized, even the prison system is a business usually without incentive to re-socialize the inmates). Many also do not take criticism that well (unlike the British who learn to debate at a young age and elevate that into an art-form). Learning to solve differences through debate (or by using other non-lethal instruments), also reduces the need to use weapons to make a point, or vent frustration, or uphold law and order.

I remember the amazement (culture shock) from the local Police Department of a Central American city, when we explained that in the Netherlands we radio broadcast where and when the mobile speed cameras are active. "But then you won't catch the speeders, they said". We answered "Correct, because we do not want to write tickets, but we want people to drive more slowly and adhere to the legal limit" (which they do if they know they will be caught). Total shock.

But then, looking at what people get spoon-fed each day through television in the form of crime-'shows', sensationalist news reports, selective sponsoring e.g. by the huge gun lobby, video games, Weapons of Mass Destruction (not needed for terrorizing people, a knife and a beheading will do), etc., it comes as no surprise that people get a warped idea of reality, and uncertain people do the darnedest things. It also increases the risks for those officials who are given the legal power to uphold law.

Apparently, as people are coming here in droves, legally and illegally.

A cynic might ask, ... as a choice for the lesser of two evils, maybe?

Note that the support for stricter gun controls is trending down, not up, since 2000:

If that's the question asked in that Gallup poll, it's no surprise. Giving up rights is easier than getting them (back). So if the consequences are not laid out together with the question, the answer is predictable.

Since the possession of guns (not multiple guns per inhabitant, but the number of inhabitants/families), if I'm to believe the statistics, is also trending down over the last decades (for a variety of reasons), it's obviously also less of an issue to many whether or not law gets stricter. That's why statistics should be properly conducted, analyzed, and explained/commented on.

Cheers,
Bart

[RSL]

The Supreme Court should also clearly define what a "Well-regulated militia" is. I'm pretty sure it wasn't originally intended as everyone can have all the guns they want.

Matt, you might want to read The Federalist Papers, a collection of articles written by several of the fathers of our country. Here's Hamilton in Federalist #46 (I'm sure you know who he was): " Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."

In other words, the people should be in a position under their states to launch another, hopefully bloodless revolution if the government becomes too oppressive. To do that they must be armed. Comparing what was happening under king George with what's happening under our present federal government it's clear we're awfully close to the time for people to stand up and say, "That's enough. Back off"

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

In other words, the people should be in a position under their states to launch another, hopefully bloodless revolution if the government becomes too oppressive.

Hi Russ,

And how are guns a benefit in that scenario?

It only increases the - shoot first, ask questions later - trigger happy attitude. As a deterrent? Not likely, states have more means than civilians anyway, so they do not even need arms to invade anyone's privacy or property or paralyze society, should they wish to.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... then why not reduce the things that can be influenced?...

Like what? Guns? Legal or illegal?

[John Koerner]

To say nothing of American history and American business.

• Colt Manufacturing Company LLC
  545 New Park Ave.
  West Hartford, CT 06110
  
  Remington Arms Company, LLC
  870 Remington Drive
  Madison, NC 27025-0700
  
  Smith & Wesson
  2100 Roosevelt Avenue
  Springfield, MA 01104
  
  Winchester Repeating Arms
  275 Winchester Avenue
  Morgan, UT 84050

America gun manufacture has been the backbone of American culture and development.

The names, Colt, Remington, Smith & Wesson, and Winchester as American as "baseball" and "apple pie," if not more American.

[MattBurt]

In other words, the people should be in a position under their states to launch another, hopefully bloodless revolution if the government becomes too oppressive. To do that they must be armed. Comparing what was happening under king George with what's happening under our present federal government it's clear we're awfully close to the time for people to stand up and say, "That's enough. Back off"

Yes, I'm familiar with the Federalist Papers and they certainly had their place in history. While your interpretation may have been correct in the 1780's I don't think they really apply anymore. Are you claiming that all these privately owned firearms would be enough to challenge our federal armed forces? Or that their threat would convince the federal government to just accept what I'm pretty sure they would view as an act treason?

How would that look different from the Bundy/Malheur standoffs or the Dallas shooting?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Like what? Guns? Legal or illegal?

It's 'slightly' more complicated than that

Cheers,
Bart

[Peter McLennan]

America gun manufacture has been the backbone of American culture and development.

OMFG

[RSL]

Yes, I'm familiar with the Federalist Papers and they certainly had their place in history. While your interpretation may have been correct in the 1780's I don't think they really apply anymore. Are you claiming that all these privately owned firearms would be enough to challenge our federal armed forces? Or that their threat would convince the federal government to just accept what I'm pretty sure they would view as an act treason?

How would that look different from the Bundy/Malheur standoffs or the Dallas shooting?

Well, Matt, I'm not saying the people would rise up and fight the U.S. military. In fact if they did that I'm quite sure the military wouldn't fight them. Don't forget the Posse Comitatus act. An order to shoot civilians would be an illegal order unless we were under martial law, but in any case our military isn't going to fight its own people, orders or no orders.

But the fact that people are armed -- more and more so under this president -- makes some of the crap our overlords are trying to pull more difficult, and in some cases impossible.

Remember, the Declaration of Independence was and act of treason. It's in our bones. When things get bad enough people in the U.S. fight back. I hope they'll do it politically, but from what happened between Hillary and Comey it's quite evident the system is rigged.

People are just plain pissed off. That's the only reason somebody like Trump can make any headway.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...How would that look different from the Bundy/Malheur standoffs or the Dallas shooting?

Scope.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I remember the amazement (culture shock) from the local Police Department of a Central American city, when we explained that in the Netherlands we radio broadcast where and when the mobile speed cameras are active. "But then you won't catch the speeders, they said". We answered "Correct, because we do not want to write tickets, but we want people to drive more slowly and adhere to the legal limit" (which they do if they know they will be caught). Total shock...

There is a different explanation for what you perceived as a "culture shock." Many municipalities fund a significant portion of their budgets via traffic tickets, mostly as a result of the Bush tax cut. We might argue what is better, to pay 60% in income taxes (middle-class) like in Holland, which gives you the luxury of not having to fund your municipal taxes via traffic tickets, or reduce the tax burden on everyone and make it up from those who actually break the law.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

There is a different explanation for what you perceived as a "culture shock." Many municipalities fund a significant portion of their budgets via traffic tickets, mostly as a result of the Bush tax cut. We might argue what is better, to pay 60% in income taxes (middle-class) like in Holland, which gives you the luxury of not having to fund your municipal taxes via traffic tickets, or reduce the tax burden on everyone and make it up from those who actually break the law.

It's still Culture shock. Different cultures solve (design systems) in different ways, sometimes with similar goals in mind. As we tend to say, there is more than 1 road that leads to Rome (referring to the Roman Empire).

BTW,  income taxes are not (60%) as high as you suggest. There are for 2016 basically 3 tax brackets, 36.55% (low incomes) , 40.4% (middle income), and a maximum of 52% for the highest incomes. And most of that money comes back to society in the form of different benefits and job creation. And indeed, it takes out the (perverse) self-funding of Police officers, who personally benefit from writing tickets and confiscating property.

Cheers,
Bart