Is it time for Red Flag laws?

[RSL]

Unfortunately, the fact that it's a criminal offense to carry a knife doesn't seem to be preventing stabbings, any more than the fact it's a criminal offense to carry a gun in Chicago is preventing shootings.

Let's face it, Jeremy, it's a social problem we're seeing, not an equipment problem.

[LesPalenik]

.
Speaking about Red Flags... the latest incident, with the  YouTube shooter: neither mass, nor terrorist, not even a workplace violence, and yet... there were some Red Flags. Family reported her missing and maybe "about to do something." Police found her, stopped her, talked to her 20 minutes, and concluded that she is calm, composed, rational, and no danger to herself and others. She bought a gun, legally, in January, and went to a target practice. And yet, just hours after talking to the police, she walked into YouTube headquarters and shot three people, unrelated to her, and then herself. What kind of law would have prevented all that?

This is a very good real-world example.  I can't think of any kind of law that could have prevented this act. Well, maybe employing smarter cops.

But I would speculate that if that woman didn't have access to a revolver, but only to a knife, she might have found using the knife too messy to express her rage.
Also not as suitable for killing multiple people, and most definitely very appalling for stabbing herself.   

[Rob C]

This is a very good real-world example.  I can't think of any kind of law that could have prevented this act. Well, maybe employing smarter cops.

But I would speculate that if that woman didn't have access to a revolver, but only to a knife, she might have found using the knife too messy to express her rage.
Also not as suitable for killing multiple people, and most definitely very appalling for stabbing herself.

Agreed, but there's always the impossibilty of getting people to admit that they see the difference in damage that a single, gun-toting nutcase can do, that no single knife maniac or acid thrower can match.

They do, of course, get it, but admitting to that defeats their argument which, of course, just won't do!

It's the basic flaw illustrating the futility of all such threads.

[Robert Roaldi]

Agreed, but there's always the impossibilty of getting people to admit that they see the difference in damage that a single, gun-toting nutcase can do, that no single knife maniac or acid thrower can match.

They do, of corse, get it, but admitting to that defeats their argument which, of course, just won't do!

It's the basic flaw illustrating the futility of all such threads.

Spot on. Attempting to draw some kind of equivalence between the very numerous gun deaths and those caused by knives or rental vans is comical.

[Alan Klein]

Agreed, but there's always the impossibilty of getting people to admit that they see the difference in damage that a single, gun-toting nutcase can do, that no single knife maniac or acid thrower can match.

They do, of corse, get it, but admitting to that defeats their argument which, of course, just won't do!

It's the basic flaw illustrating the futility of all such threads.

Guns are dangerous, more so than knives apparently here in the US. But you're missing the point.  People accept the carnage on the roads with 40,000 people killed yearly, a third from drunks and probably a large percentage of people illegally speeding.  They accept the carnage because they aren't going to give up their personal cars. 

It's the same with guns.  Americans are not willing to repeal their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms even though there are those who abuse that right.  Most Americans follow gun laws and are careful users just like most people don't drive drunk.  We are a country of laws.  These laws can be changed.  If enough people want a change, then there will be a Constitutional amendment.

[RSL]

Spot on. Attempting to draw some kind of equivalence between the very numerous gun deaths and those caused by knives or rental vans is comical.

Really? Why do you think it's comical? And what makes you think murders with guns outnumber the totals from knives and vehicles? It's one thing to make an unsupported assertion and another to support it.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Spot on. Attempting to draw some kind of equivalence between the very numerous gun deaths and those caused by knives or rental vans is comical.

Nothing comical about it. The flaw in that argument is typical: you isolate one aspect and then claim victory. Yes, isolated from other factors, and put in a favorable (for you) context, there is no doubt that a single gun can kill quicker and more efficiently than a single knife. But that is just one aspect. Just one. And only relevant for mass murders, which represent around 1% of all murders.

And yet, as the recent London example shows, knives in aggregate can kill more people there than guns in New York.

Furthermore, knowing that inherent limitation of knives, there are two solutions, both tried and true: multiple assailants with knives can kill, and did (China), dozens of victims in the same attack. Second solution: while it is difficult to kill several grown ups with a single knife and by a single attacker (the assumptions is, they would mount a serious resistance), knowing that inherent limitation of his weapon, the attacker will choose a softer target: young children, trapped in a class. Again, happened somewhere in the world already.

[Rob C]

Guns are dangerous, more so than knives apparently here in the US. But you're missing the point.  People accept the carnage on the roads with 40,000 people killed yearly, a third from drunks and probably a large percentage of people illegally speeding.  They accept the carnage because they aren't going to give up their personal cars. 

It's the same with guns.  Americans are not willing to repeal their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms even though there are those who abuse that right.  Most Americans follow gun laws and are careful users just like most people don't drive drunk.  We are a country of laws.  These laws can be changed.  If enough people want a change, then there will be a Constitutional amendment.

No, it is not the same at all, as I believe I illustrated some time ago; neither am I missing your point.

A car has a useful, principal purpose which is transportation, and makes our contemporary world go round, especially for those living outwith, but working within cities that may or may not provide a good public transport system to and from metropolitan areas. As it is, even the safest driver in the world is coming to face a situation where running a car anywhere near a city is going to become an untenable concept if only because of parking difficulties.

Your gun, on the other hand, also has a principal purpose which is to kill. That is probably its sole purpose.

Any attempt at making a sensible comparison is futile, as you well know even as you refuse to acknowledge.

"Nothing comical about it. The flaw in that argument is typical: you isolate one aspect and then claim victory. Yes, isolated from other factors, and put in a favorable (for you) context, there is no doubt that a single gun can kill quicker and more efficiently than a single knife. But that is just one aspect. Just one. And only relevant for mass murders, which represent around 1% of all murders."

No, Slobodan, it is not applicable only to mass murder. It is the preferred method of gang violence where guns exist in easy circulation. It also permits the easy killing of a stronger human being than the shooter, a target the killer may never have faced with any alternative weapon.

Yep, have a legally held gun for home protection, but that's the limit that makes any sort of sense that I can see.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Ok, let's see.

There are things designed to kill (guns) and things designed with good intentions (cars), not to kill. And yet, more people are killed by things not designed to kill than by those that are. On top of that, there are more guns than cars in the US. Which means cars are several times more likely to kill you than guns. Speaking of the road to hell (paved with good intentions)...

[Alan Klein]

No, it is not the same at all, as I believe I illustrated some time ago; neither am I missing your point.

A car has a useful, principal purpose which is transportation, and makes our contemporary world go round, especially for those living outwith, but working within cities that may or may not provide a good public transport system to and from metropolitan areas. As it is, even the safest driver in the world is coming to face a situation where running a car anywhere near a city is going to become an untenable concept if only because of parking difficulties.

Your gun, on the other hand, also has a principal purpose which is to kill. That is probably its sole purpose.

Any attempt at making a sensible comparison is futile, as you well know even as you refuse to acknowledge.

"Nothing comical about it. The flaw in that argument is typical: you isolate one aspect and then claim victory. Yes, isolated from other factors, and put in a favorable (for you) context, there is no doubt that a single gun can kill quicker and more efficiently than a single knife. But that is just one aspect. Just one. And only relevant for mass murders, which represent around 1% of all murders."

No, Slobodan, it is not applicable only to mass murder. It is the preferred method of gang violence where guns exist in easy circulation. It also permits the easy killing of a stronger human being than the shooter, a target the killer may never have faced with any alternative weapon.

Yep, have a legally held gun for home protection, but that's the limit that makes any sort of sense that I can see.

A gun is far more important and useful than a car. And not only for home protection.  It's there to help prevent a tyrant from taking away our freedom.  That's why the right to keep and bear arms in protected in our Constitution while the right to drive can be taken away at any time.  You really don't understand what's important in our relationship with the people we give power to in government.  Or wish to take it.  Look at how the re-elected leader of Hungary plans to arbitrarily change his country's Constitution just like Turkey's and Venezuela's.  Look at the people in those countries today with their loss of freedom.  Not so easy to change the American constitution but that's why we've been free for 240 years. 

[Jeremy Roussak]

A gun is far more important and useful than a car. And not only for home protection.  It's there to help prevent a tyrant from taking away our freedom.  That's why the right to keep and bear arms in protected in our Constitution while the right to drive can be taken away at any time.  You really don't understand what's important in our relationship with the people we give power to in government.  Or wish to take it.  Look at how the re-elected leader of Hungary plans to arbitrarily change his country's Constitution just like Turkey's and Venezuela's.  Look at the people in those countries today with their loss of freedom.  Not so easy to change the American constitution but that's why we've been free for 240 years.

Alan, that's a preposterous argument. As you observe, it's your constitution that prevents dictatorship and arbitrary loss of freedom, not guns. We in England have managed to be free for substantially longer than 240 years without widespread ownership of guns.

Show me anyone who thinks his gun (and it has to be a he, obviously) is "more important and useful than [his] car" and I'll show you someone who needs to reconnect with reality.

Jeremy

[Rob C]

A gun is far more important and useful than a car. And not only for home protection.  It's there to help prevent a tyrant from taking away our freedom.  That's why the right to keep and bear arms in protected in our Constitution while the right to drive can be taken away at any time.  You really don't understand what's important in our relationship with the people we give power to in government.  Or wish to take it.  Look at how the re-elected leader of Hungary plans to arbitrarily change his country's Constitution just like Turkey's and Venezuela's.  Look at the people in those countries today with their loss of freedom.  Not so easy to change the American constitution but that's why we've been free for 240 years.

Reading about civilians with guns as the means of preventing tyrants taking over the States makes me feel stunned.
 
There is no need to arm the citizenry to prevent that; a better way is to lock up those many people who come over not one whit less radical/fundamentalist than those in any Middle Eastern country of your choice. From religious, so-called Christian fanatics (unlike Christians I've ever met from other cultures except the Irelands and the West of Scotland); believers in aliens and deniers of global warming to folks who follow the most pointless moments of some pointless person's life on "social media" with quasi-religious fervour, you have all the possible base and catalysts you need to do anything bad that any typical tyrant could think of doing. And most if not all of those folks can own as many guns as they desire to make themselves feel invincible.

Having armed police, armed National Guards, the top military muscle in the world, do you really imagine that any ruler blessed with control of that power base is going to be stopped by civilians? Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, all those places have as many guns as people; where do you find the stability an armed civilian population supposedly brings? Madness and chaos is what you get when guns run out of control and into the hands of people who, by now, don't give a damn if they live or die.

Frankly, your armed civilians represent, to many countries, your greatest long-term threat to survival as a nation.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Civilians with guns took over Afghanistan and Iran, to name a few from recent history. Civilians with guns defeated Germans in Yugoslavia during WWII, not its army. Civilians with guns took over the US from the British army.

[Rob C]

Civilians with guns took over Afghanistan and Iran, to name a few from recent history. Civilians with guns defeated Germans in Yugoslavia during WWII, not its army. Civilians with guns took over the US from the British army.

Civilians with guns in Afghanistan and Iran are hardly good advocates for similar scenarios playing out better in the US; it's quite likely you'd get a domestic version of Libya today, not any better an outcome.

Civilians with guns in the US must have outnumbered the BA, I'd imagine, but either way, I'm sure the BA was delighted to get away from a land where all sorts of snakes can kill you when only the adder, in extreme cases, can in the UK! Don't forget, from the British point of view, America was also used as a punishment, a distant place to where unfortunately unpopular people could be banished (didn't you read Forever Amber as a child?). Maybe that's why the US and Australia seem to hold similar places within the British psyche...

And yes, civilians with guns, local knowledge and unlimited foreign supply of whatever it takes kicked the US out of Vietnam, too, and as with the Brits in America, I'm pretty sure those GIs were just as delighted to be the hell out of there.

Yugoslavia and northern Italy had partisans, as had France, but I think Germany had greater problems to think about closer to home than concentrate too much on those further away.

But anyway, it wasn't civilian guns took out Hitler, who took himself out; it was international armies who took out his war machine, and several different armies combined, along with one, terrible tactical mistake about Russia!

But the little elephant is this one: some armies that are defeated, such as in the case of the US in Vietnam, were not run by politicians without any sense of the value of human life, because had they been, the resulting bloodbath would have annihilated some entire countries, providing a pretty pointless victory. The tyrant of Alan's nightmares is hardly likely to share the same fatal weakness of a normal sense of the value of life, of anyone's life, other than his own. Those armed forces you already have, and that that said, probably elected tyrant would then control, would wipe out anything in their path. And remember, this would be no foreign expedition, this would all be played out on the homeland with no tv showing heroes coming home in body bags from fighting on some foreign land. The first thing you'd lose is an uncontrolled media. And you already know what media can do in America.

The even smaller, baby elephant could be seen in the case of the American Civil War. No foreign invaders there, were  there? More like too many guns, period. On the other hand, I'm sure somebody could make an argument about it all being the fault of the black slaves.

Words, words, words. It all just rolls interminably round and round like some crazy rabbit stuffed with Duracells.

Rob

[Alan Klein]

Alan, that's a preposterous argument. As you observe, it's your constitution that prevents dictatorship and arbitrary loss of freedom, not guns. We in England have managed to be free for substantially longer than 240 years without widespread ownership of guns.

Show me anyone who thinks his gun (and it has to be a he, obviously) is "more important and useful than [his] car" and I'll show you someone who needs to reconnect with reality.

Jeremy

Jeremy.  It is obvious to most readers if not you, that it was your countrymen the English who ruled over America and Americans while you English were supposedly "free".  And it was the American patriot in 1776 with his gun that help free ourselves from your rule.  I'm sorry you're still upset about it.  Maybe we should get rid of our weapons and you can give it another try.

[Alan Klein]

There is no need to arm the citizenry to prevent that; a better way is to lock up those many people who come over not one whit less radical/fundamentalist than those in any Middle Eastern country of your choice. From religious, so-called Christian fanatics (unlike Christians I've ever met from other cultures except the Irelands and the West of Scotland); believers in aliens and deniers of global warming to folks who follow the most pointless moments of some pointless person's life on "social media" with quasi-religious fervour, you have all the possible base and catalysts you need to do anything bad that any typical tyrant could think of doing. And most if not all of those folks can own as many guns as they desire to make themselves feel invincible.

I don't know of any deniers of global warming who have taken up arms and started to shoot people.  I suppose you can find one or two.  But Americans have pretty much accepted the ballet box and our federal and republican form of government.  We still respect the decisions of our courts. 

Having armed police, armed National Guards, the top military muscle in the world, do you really imagine that any ruler blessed with control of that power base is going to be stopped by civilians? Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, all those places have as many guns as people; where do you find the stability an armed civilian population supposedly brings? Madness and chaos is what you get when guns run out of control and into the hands of people who, by now, don't give a damn if they live or die.

You're also making the assuption that the Admirals and Generals of the US Navy and US Army, USAF etc would support a dictatorial regime.  In our country, all military as well as all politicians swear an oath to Defend and Protect our Constitution, not the President, or other Generals, or the government.  So you're assuming that these General and Admirals will violate their oath en masse.  I think that most will remain patriots and defend the Constitution against tyrannical government and act militarily to defend the Constitution not the tyrant.  We're not Pakistan or Afghanistan.

Even if I'm wrong and the generals support the dictator, and this is where the 2nd Amendment comes in, citizens will support their State and their State's National Guard which comes from each state. If the US National Army supported a dictator as you suggest will happen, then the several states would activate their National Guard and all their citizens who also bear arms as protected by the Constitution and go against the National Government.  This is why the States insisted on the 2nd Amendment to be part of the Constitution before they would agree to join the United States.  The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to help prevent a National Army from taking over and asserting its power and defend a dictatorial regime.   It happened in our own Civil War when the Armies and people of the South rose up against the Federal government.  One can argue whether that was a smart or moral thing.  But the point is that they were able to do it because they had the equivalent of a National Guard in each State and an armed citizenry. 

I think part of the disconnect between Europeans and Americans on this issue is that Europe was ruled so long in the past by monarchs, Czars, and other tyrants.  So there's a history of leaving power with the government.  That's not so with America.  Most Americans wanted their own political power and not be controlled by the English tyrant King Geroge III any more than current Brits want to be controlled by those nosey bureaucratic gnomes in Brussels.  Americans who are not brain washed by the Liberal press see their guns as the instrument of their freedom and are not willing to give them up.

[Damon Lynch]

Americans who are not brain washed by the Liberal press see their guns as the instrument of their freedom and are not willing to give them up.

Oh, freedom from tyranny must be precisely the reason these Michigan gun owners do this:

Seems like three or four times a week I take a gun out of the safe and fondle it for the night. Dry fire it. Stare at the lines of the gun. . . . Love the feel of the gun, the lines, the weight of it. I could stare and play with it for hours! I do do that!

I just did the same thing with my AR15. I forgot how good it felt in my hands with just standard handguards on it. So simple and streamlined.

Fondle? You know, slip your finger in the mag well. To which someone else replies Prom Night drill....

Does anyone else routinely change up the accessories on their black guns and pistols just for something different? . . . . It's like the MAN version of playing dress up LOL. To which someone adds, Sometimes I play dress up with my AR15 too... Just get bored and change out accessories and what not just to change things up.

[Fondling your gun will] make you go blind

Here we have Michigan gun owners comparing how they fondle their guns to masturbation, inserting a finger inside a teen girl, and dressing up their gun like a kids game.  Those are actual quotes. That is the cultural and psycho-sexual world they live in, as stated in their own words. If this is what they freely admit to in writing in public, imagine what they only share privately while drunk, or are too ashamed to admit to others.

[LesPalenik]

or

Oh, freedom from tyranny must be precisely the reason the many camera owners do this[/url]:

Seems like three or four times a week I take a camera out of the bag and fondle it for the night. Dry fire it. Stare at the lines of the camera. . . . Love the feel of the camera, the lines, the weight of it. I could stare and play with it for hours! I do do that!

I just did the same thing with my A7RIII. I forgot how good it felt in my hands with just standard battery grip on it. So simple and streamlined.

Fondle? You know, slip your finger over the shutter.

Does anyone else routinely change up the accessories on their black bodies and lenses just for something different? . . . . It's like the MAN version of playing dress up LOL. To which someone adds, Sometimes I play dress up with my A7RIII too... Just get bored and change out accessories and what not just to change things up.

[Fondling your camera will] make you go blind
[/quote]

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...inserting a finger inside a teen girl...

Ah, you homophobe you!

It is 21st century, on a prom night, one can insert a finger inside the whole alphabet soup of freaks, not just girls

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

My first "serious" camera was Canon FTbN, with a 50/1/4 lens. I was choosing between a Nikon model and Canon based on... wait!.... the color of lens reflection on their advertisements in Modern/Popular Photography. Decided on Canon, as I preferred their anti-reflection coating (purple), vs. Nikon's green. Like choosing a girlfriend based on preference for blondes or brunettes

When I got it, I could spend hours just looking at that  beautiful purple reflection on the 50/1.4 lens under various angels and lights, holding it in my hands, or putting it on a table and admiring from a distance. By the way, it had to be 50/1.4, yes, sir, not a lowly 1.8, as real men must have big... lenses!

One day I noticed a tiny speck of dirt on the surface of that lens. O, horror! Immediately reached for a lens-cleaning liquid and a q-tip and started gently rubbing the curvy surface of the lens in a circular motion. Coming close to the surface with my mouth, gently blowing off the dust and breathing warm, moist air onto it. No matter what I did, the dirt was gone, of course, but now in its place were streakes from the cleaning liquid, bigger than the original speck of dirt. There goes my beautiful, perfect, round, purple lens surface, never again virgin-clean 

It occurred to me that the solution is to expand the circular motion across the whole surface of the lens. No luck... still could see the streaks. How about if I just squirt the liquid onto the lens, without using the q-tip? Surely it will quickly evaporate with no streaks? And so I did. Then watched in horror how the liquid goes beyond the edges of the glass, slowly dripping from one lens surface onto another, inside the lens.

My first love affair with a lens ended in a visit to the nearest camera repair shop, where they disassembled the whole lens, putting their dirty fingers inside, touching and rubbing each lens element.

I could never look at that lens the same way after that.

Hope you enjoyed it. Next installment: how I use a monopod. Stay tuned.