ManagingPrime

You may be interested in the work on John Calhoun. http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/42/wiles.php

Both are right. Possession in switzerland is high, but that doesn't mean people are allowed to carry them. IE, you are not allowed to take the military issued rifle out to your backyard and start shooting with it. Or decide that you need it with you while grocery shopping. So, in the end, using Switzerland as an example is flawed. Israel and Switzerland really don't compare to the US. Even if Switzerlands gun laws mirrored those of the US I don't think we would see comparable gun rights. Israel has external threats which are reflected in their gun laws. I would have to look at the numbers, but I'm willing to be that since World War II American society could take the award for the most violent. Violent people with guns make for gun violence...that is simple to understand on a very basic level. The real question is, if America is in fact a violent society, why? Could it have something to do with how we define violence and differentiate between acceptable violence and unacceptable violence? For instance, we've all heard the "I'll 'fight' (read kill) to protect my property rights (read gun)" What has not been articulated, but what is generally understood is there are those who would also kill (read law enforcement) to take someones property, given the legal authority. In the case of these opposing parties, does one actually possess moral high ground, do both? EDIT TO ADD: The general idea with the OP is that America has a gun culture like no other. American may be a more violent society than it's peers. To get to the core issue violence needs to be addressed, not guns....then we can find commonality with societies that do not have the gun culture. After all, if it were not for violence we would not be having this discussion regarding guns.

There are a lot of alcoholics in this thread...I'm trying to keep up.

The gun debate is obviously quite polarizing and I suspect that no one is converting members from "the other camp". In fact, the word divisive might be better suited than polarizing....let's talk about violence. I'm sure most would agree that violence in nearly all cases is a "bad" thing, but I think if we dig deeper into the issue of violence as opposed to gun violence the discussion would be much more nuanced and provide greater understanding between the parties. For example, I can pretty confidently state that we can all agree that killing 1, 2, 20 innocent children, by any means, is a case of unacceptable violence. When is violence acceptable? Is violence an acceptable means to defend oneself? What about property? Is it ok to use violence preemptively in order to defend oneself, others or property? Is it ever ok to use violence for some reason other than the defense of life, liberty or property? Are there special licenses for violence? By this I mean, it's ok for person A to use violence in a particular situation, but it's not ok for person B to use it. Is violence a bad thing? If so, are there any cases where depictions of violence, real or imagined, are wrong? For the most part, i'm sure we can all agree that guns are efficient and fairly readily available tools for violence...some more so than others. This is the debate, but should it be the focus of attention or should the core issue of violence be? Are we (Americans) as a society more violent than others? And if so, why? I would really like to avoid the discussion of guns, as it's kind of boring at this point and I'm finding the discussion about violence much more interesting. If anyone is interested in making it more interesting we can turn this into a drinking game. Mention the word "gun" and you have to drink. Let's step out of the box folks.

Its often said, but it's just about never true. Come to AZ. Conceal carry is legal without a permit. A large number of people open and conceal carry. With that in mind I don't "mouth off" at people for perceived slights like I may in a state like say, New York or California. Conversely, I conceal carry quite often. I also make a point not take offense if someone is trying to be provocative. Why? Because if the situation escalated someone could die. It's one thing to say "mutual respect". It's something wholly different when both parties have the means to defend themselves with lethal force. That's not what being polite is. That's what being scared is. I would disagree. I would say that the situation (being in a population group where a large percentage are armed) simply forces some people to give a little more consideration to their actions where they otherwise would not. Polite as defined simply means: "1.well-mannered: showing or possessing good manners or common courtesy". If someone is generally not well mannered, but is because they are unsure if the other person is armed or not, I'll call that a win.

Its often said, but it's just about never true. Come to AZ. Conceal carry is legal without a permit. A large number of people open and conceal carry. With that in mind I don't "mouth off" at people for perceived slights like I may in a state like say, New York or California. Conversely, I conceal carry quite often. I also make a point not take offense if someone is trying to be provocative. Why? Because if the situation escalated someone could die. It's one thing to say "mutual respect". It's something wholly different when both parties have the means to defend themselves with lethal force.

Intution tells me that more than 1 in 1000 people on psychoactive drugs have commited a violent crime. ...same for gun owners. However, I'll bet dollars to dimes that the "drug" group has higher incidences of violence. Not sure about the source of this data, but this study was on the first page of a google search for "study on violent behavior and psychoactive drugs" http://www.cchr.org/sites/default/files/education/violence-and-suicide-booklet.pdf

Ding!Ding! Ding! The solution is really simple. Love one another. Treat others with respect and care. Treat others with the same consideration we would like to be treated with. When we see someone in pain reach out and try and help. If just 90% of the population did this the vast majority of societies ills would be cured. Any individual can follow this prescription, even if they have an arsenal, including nukes...and nudes. Sad fact is, you can't legislate that kind of behavior and I just don't see that kind of sea change happening.

+1

When and where did we learn that? Do you know what VIX is? I do....You think that maybe the VIX is down because there is a deal?

When and where did we learn that? Maybe....just maybe, the markets are reacting to inflation expectations.

Repeal the 16th amendment...and then work from there. Problem solved.

Sorry to hear about your loss. I don't mean any disrespect at all with this question; were any of them on psychiatric meds?

Think you need to re-read the bible. If that was a tongue and cheek response intended to imply that the gandi quote was taken out of context like the Jesus quote you would be mistaken. Gandi was specifically referencing the Indian Arms Act of 1878. At his core, Gandi was fighting for the freedom of his people. He choose to lead as a pacifist, but he fully understood, as many others do, how in a world of sheep and wolves arms and freedom are inextricably linked. Some other quotes on the subject to test the FB bots if your so inclined. "No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." --James Burgh (Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses) [London, 1774-1775] "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty." -- Adolf Hitler (H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler's Table Talks 1941-1944) "A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie." -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." -- The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- Patrick Henry "Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You'll pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins." -- Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, Mafia hit man

Some are. And called things like "sin tax" in order to make it known. Nonsense. Every "sin tax" is completely optional. If you don't want to pay it, don't buy the product. By purchasing the product, you are agreeing to pay the tax. That's not a punishment; that's a contract. Really? What if I want the product and I dont want to pay the tax? As a child i was told what my punishment would be if I engaged in certain activates. If I was caught engaging in those activates I was punished. I guess if you wanted to play semantics you could call that a contract as well.

I thought he was from Kenya? So you don't know if there is causation or correlation, but you are bringing it forward as an example of such? Homicide rate declined over 40% over 2 decades since 1990, but is now up significantly. The only change in gun laws is that a previous gun ban was overturned in June 2010. I'm NOT claiming cause and effect, but it certainly destroys regulator's implication. During that same period, much of which Chicago led the nation with the most restrictive gun laws, the national murder rate declined by 52.94% while the rate in Chicago only decreased by 43.90%. Me thinks that has a LOT to do with demographics and very little to do with gun control. Did I claim otherwise? You seem to be stating that prior to the gun ban murders were increasing, during the gun ban they decreased and after the ban was lifted they started to increase. The numbers are the numbers, are the numbers... however, it seems that you think that gun bans actually have the effect of decreasing murders. At least in the case of Chicago the numbers just simply do not show this to be the case. I'm of the opinion that the gun laws in Chicago had little to no effect on the murder rate. If people are actually discussing gutting our constitution to address violence in America I have a better proposition than banning guns....penal colonies. While the proposition is just as ridiculous , I guarantee you it will be much more effective.

It missed 2010: 16.1 Notice big drop 1990-2010. Up again this year. And still way higher than during the Prohibition tommy-gun days. But also see the big increase after the handgun ban. To be fair, the nation as a whole saw an upswing in homicides between 1984 and 1991...largely as a result of the crack cocaine epidemic during that period.

I thought he was from Kenya? So you don't know if there is causation or correlation, but you are bringing it forward as an example of such? Homicide rate declined over 40% over 2 decades since 1990, but is now up significantly. The only change in gun laws is that a previous gun ban was overturned in June 2010. I'm NOT claiming cause and effect, but it certainly destroys regulator's implication. During that same period, much of which Chicago led the nation with the most restrictive gun laws, the national murder rate declined by 52.94% while the rate in Chicago only decreased by 43.90%. Me thinks that has a LOT to do with demographics and very little to do with gun control.

Car, Knife, Bomb, "whatever". It's pretty easy to kill an unarmed and unsuspecting person...especially kids, their legs are not that long so they don't run so fast. Private gun ownership gives the american populace a "chance" to fight back in the case of an "invasion" or civil war vs. absolutely no chance without them.

3 AR's per person? Could probably make a tidy profit selling a few. Any plans on visiting Eloy this winter/spring?

Nor do the "disarm" folks. Assuming 300 million guns in the US. like you, I'll go lowball and assume $500 per gun to seize them. That's $150,000,000,000 to eliminate the guns. $150 billion dollars. Can you cite one one serious elected official that wants to confiscate every privately owned firearm in the country? In all honesty, I think your cost estimates for complete confiscation were a bit on the high side, I think with UN help we could do it much cheaper. That's a joke right? I tend to roll my eyes when I hear people talk of america being on the brink of a civil war, but I guarantee you that if there are any plans for confiscation there will be a great loss of human life and the costs would be more in the trillions.

I think it has more to do with the fact that many of those shootings are between gangs, or between two criminals. They simply are not seen the same way as 20 children aged 6 and 7 while at school. Not entirety correct. There are many cases of innocent children killed in chicago whos only crime is having a parent to poor to move out of the hood. The 2/3rd rule is still in effect.

"Fear" of future death, pain, loss of freedom, etc. is what sets us apart from other species. It's also the basis for many of our societal ills as this fear can be exploited and the the most valuable resource on earth, human labor, can be controlled. We live in times where we are contantly being told about some thing we should fear..... can't say I've seen the human condition improve all that much as a result. Sure, you hold a gun to someones head and you can change thier behavior. People will respond to fear as a stimulus... but it does not change our nature. To paraphase a friend of mine on this subject, "the best thing aliens could do for earth upon arrival is to wipe out humans.".... I'm inclined to agree. To the original question.... I think responses would be a mixed bag.

I found these two parts particularly amusing coming from the SPD. Will police officers be able to smoke marijuana? As of right now, no. This is still a very complicated issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kzmrljnWPXg#at=16

Would prefer squares, but I'm not at all opposed to rounds.