Outsiders fail to appreciate how deeply ingrained the Civil War is into the American psyche to this day. And here we have, at the extreme ends of the argument for and against, two groups of people who are in fear for their lives and their culture. Not good.

On the one side a section of society that believes without guns they are at the mercy of criminals and state. At the other end are people who attribute the annual slaughter to the proliferation of weapons. Neither can agree and in between are all those people who might be able to find common ground but are in fear of the consequences if those two extremes start taking action against each other. Incidents like Waco demonstrate how badly that can go.

A cultural shift of the scale required to reach a compromise is beyond the ambit of a single political party in power and until it becomes an election issue will probably remain so.

Quote from: fujiko on October 11, 2015, 13:01

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 11, 2015, 12:52
When was slavery legal in the U.S.? When was apartheid legal in South Africa?

If you are going to deny there has been a history of racial issues and violence in the US, there is not much more to talk.

Still, notice the other thing I pointed out about the author removing all countries with a higher gun murder ratio.
The thing is, in this data if only developed countries are considered, both US and South Africa are anomalies.

So, I ask you again, if you remove the US from the data, what correlation do you see?

- All world countries, no correlation.
- All developed countries, no correlation.
- Developed countries excl. South Africa, magic! Correlation!!
- Developed countries excl. South Africa and US...... no correlation.

Do you see a pattern?

The whole world sees a very obvious pattern, but a very small number of gun owners in the U.S. shut their eyes and refuse to see. We have only 5% of the world's population and only a minority own guns. So very few of you, relatively speaking, refuse to see reality.

Quote from: Red Dove on October 11, 2015, 15:46
Outsiders fail to appreciate how deeply ingrained the Civil War is into the American psyche to this day. And here we have, at the extreme ends of the argument for and against, two groups of people who are in fear for their lives and their culture. Not good.

On the one side a section of society that believes without guns they are at the mercy of criminals and state. At the other end are people who attribute the annual slaughter to the proliferation of weapons. Neither can agree and in between are all those people who might be able to find common ground but are in fear of the consequences if those two extremes start taking action against each other. Incidents like Waco demonstrate how badly that can go.

A cultural shift of the scale required to reach a compromise is beyond the ambit of a single political party in power and until it becomes an election issue will probably remain so.

Here's the difference between the two extremes. People who call for stricter gun regulations take action by trying to pass laws, and gun owners would "take action" (if your scenanrio comes to pass) by shooting and killing people.

A cultural shift is not necessary, but a good media campaign is, something that will shift public opinion as we did with drunk driving. Also, time is on our side. Because believe it or not, gun ownership is declining in the U.S. and has been for decades. That's the reason the NRA and gun manufacturers are acting so aggressively. Their customer base is shrinking, so they need to convince their existing customers that they need a lot more guns by scaring the bejesus out of them. So far their marketing, combined with their political power, is working very well.

Quote from: marthamarks on October 11, 2015, 14:30

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 11, 2015, 08:14
I agree, that is why those lobbying for guns are also super into big government, the nanny state and 90% taxation that would be necessary for this safety planning ...

Ummm. Don't you think you've got that backwards?

Those "lobbying for guns" are not the ones "super into big government, the nanny state and 90% taxation." They're much more likely to be the wild-west, shoot-'em-up, stand yer ground types who just want to get "gummint" out of their lives and keep the "gummint's filthy hands off my Medicare."

Those "lobbying for gun control" are more likely to appreciate a stronger government role in keeping us all safe.

lol, I couldn't find the sarcasm punctuation mark on my keyboard. I should have ended it with a "NOT" or at least a "yeah right"

I was going to mention the war but then thought better of it

I think if a Martian looked at American attutudes/ politics that would be the thing that would seem to color every aspect of every major debate in the US.

The civil war is so relatively recent in historical terms I think half the country sees the federal goverment as something they have a stake in and are represented by and the other half view it as an occupying force. All the debates over state rights seem to have poignancy because of this. It is trying to limit the power of an occupying force over the remenance of the defeated side. Attitudes to race seem to be fuelled largely by the same thing. It was such a brutal war I wonder if it can ever be laid to rest

Interesting article in the Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/11/mass-shooting-florida-1000th-sandy-hook

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 11, 2015, 17:09

Quote from: marthamarks on October 11, 2015, 14:30

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 11, 2015, 08:14
I agree, that is why those lobbying for guns are also super into big government, the nanny state and 90% taxation that would be necessary for this safety planning ...

Ummm. Don't you think you've got that backwards?

Those "lobbying for guns" are not the ones "super into big government, the nanny state and 90% taxation." They're much more likely to be the wild-west, shoot-'em-up, stand yer ground types who just want to get "gummint" out of their lives and keep the "gummint's filthy hands off my Medicare."

Those "lobbying for gun control" are more likely to appreciate a stronger government role in keeping us all safe.

lol, I couldn't find the sarcasm punctuation mark on my keyboard. I should have ended it with a "NOT" or at least a "yeah right"

Well, since you really and truly don't have a sarcasm punctuation mark on your keyboard, perhaps you need to work on your writing style so readers understand the "cleverness" behind what you're saying. Readers don't tend to be mind readers, and good writers know that.

Besides, there are a lot of non-US readers of this forum who probably don't have a clue which side of the gun debate is supportive of the "nanny state" and which side is not. Your mangled attempt at "sarcasm" didn't do much to inform them, I'm sure.

I think most people know enough about US politics to know that those proposing armed security in schools as a solution to shootings in schools would be the last to be prepared to fund it with their tax dollars or allow that kind of government oversite of their children. Mangled sarcasm was all that it deserved.

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 11, 2015, 08:14

Quote from: robhainer on October 10, 2015, 18:05
..........
There are other ways to protect kids in schools besides banning all guns. We could put full-time police officers in every school, control access and formulate safety plans. If having full-time armed security is good enough for our president, why isn't it good enough for our school kids?......

I agree, that is why those lobbying for guns are also super into big government, the nanny state and 90% taxation that would be necessary for this safety planning and constant supervision of their children by government armed troops, sorry security guards.

Sorry. That's crap. A lot of schools already have school resource officers, and they are trained police officers. If safety is important, then we should make schools safer with police protection. Banning guns won't do that.

Quote from: robhainer on October 11, 2015, 22:12

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 11, 2015, 08:14

Quote from: robhainer on October 10, 2015, 18:05
..........
There are other ways to protect kids in schools besides banning all guns. We could put full-time police officers in every school, control access and formulate safety plans. If having full-time armed security is good enough for our president, why isn't it good enough for our school kids?......

I agree, that is why those lobbying for guns are also super into big government, the nanny state and 90% taxation that would be necessary for this safety planning and constant supervision of their children by government armed troops, sorry security guards.

Sorry. That's crap. A lot of schools already have school resource officers, and they are trained police officers. If safety is important, then we should make schools safer. Banning guns won't do that.

Oh I think it would! Do you actually have any evidence that having guns in schools make them safer - at best it seems somewhat counter intuitive or as you might say crap 

Does having guns in the White House with the president make him safer?

Quote from: Pauws99 on October 11, 2015, 22:17

Quote from: robhainer on October 11, 2015, 22:12

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 11, 2015, 08:14

Quote from: robhainer on October 10, 2015, 18:05
..........
There are other ways to protect kids in schools besides banning all guns. We could put full-time police officers in every school, control access and formulate safety plans. If having full-time armed security is good enough for our president, why isn't it good enough for our school kids?......

I agree, that is why those lobbying for guns are also super into big government, the nanny state and 90% taxation that would be necessary for this safety planning and constant supervision of their children by government armed troops, sorry security guards.

Sorry. That's crap. A lot of schools already have school resource officers, and they are trained police officers. If safety is important, then we should make schools safer. Banning guns won't do that.

Oh I think it would! Do you actually have any evidence that having guns in schools make them safer - at best it seems somewhat counter intuitive or as you might say crap 

Guns are already banned in schools, aren't they?

Quote from: robhainer on October 12, 2015, 00:20
Does having guns in the White House with the president make him safer?

Depends, I suppose, on who it is that's packin' the heat in the White House.

This is the prohibited list for visitors to the Whitehouse

Prohibited Items
Prohibited items include, but are not limited to, the following:

Video Recorders
Handbags, book bags, backpacks or purses
Food or beverages, tobacco products, personal grooming items (i.e. makeup, lotion, etc.)
Strollers
Any pointed objects
Aerosol containers
Guns, ammunition, fireworks, electric stun guns, mace, martial arts weapons/devices, or knives of any size

Quote from: Pauws99 on October 12, 2015, 05:21
This is the prohibited list for visitors to the Whitehouse

Prohibited Items
Prohibited items include, but are not limited to, the following:

Video Recorders
Handbags, book bags, backpacks or purses
Food or beverages, tobacco products, personal grooming items (i.e. makeup, lotion, etc.)
Strollers
Any pointed objects
Aerosol containers
Guns, ammunition, fireworks, electric stun guns, mace, martial arts weapons/devices, or knives of any size

Would it make the President safer to allow more guns in the whitehouse?

Quote from: robhainer on October 12, 2015, 00:20
Does having guns in the White House with the president make him safer?

Yay! Perfect.  You've  hit nail on the head. Is anyone in the White House allowed guns other than the people guarding the president? Why do you think that is? Wouldn't  he be safer if everyone was armed? Well obviously not. It sounds rediculous. If it's good enough for the president, why not your children (as you are fond of saying)

Quote from: robhainer on October 11, 2015, 22:12

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 11, 2015, 08:14

Quote from: robhainer on October 10, 2015, 18:05
..........
There are other ways to protect kids in schools besides banning all guns. We could put full-time police officers in every school, control access and formulate safety plans. If having full-time armed security is good enough for our president, why isn't it good enough for our school kids?......

I agree, that is why those lobbying for guns are also super into big government, the nanny state and 90% taxation that would be necessary for this safety planning and constant supervision of their children by government armed troops, sorry security guards.

Sorry. That's crap. A lot of schools already have school resource officers, and they are trained police officers. If safety is important, then we should make schools safer with police protection. Banning guns won't do that.

I live in a rural Texas town and my kids have always had police officers at their schools. They have graduated now but from when they first started school in 1999 and until the last one graduated in 2014 there have been police officers present.

I grew up with handguns, rifles, and shotguns and was taught how to handle those guns with respect. I have taught my kids the same as they grew up. I believe there needs to be some changes in requirements to own a gun. I have seen many go through training to carry a weapon that had no business having a weapon. They would either hurt themselves or it would do them no good in the case for self-defense. Proper training is a necessity and if you are not willing to invest in in-depth training you should not be allowed to carry.

On the other hand there are sports that my family has been involved in such as sporting clay's. My wife, son, daughter, and I enjoy shotgun sports as well as my son and I love hunting.

I think there a lot of people here in the US that feel if you start restricting or regulating guns then that is the first step to taking them away completely. There is definitely the crowd that has that in their sites and would ban guns completely if they could. That is where you get the two sides that can't seem to come to common ground.

I think there are too many variables in the statistics to come to a conclusion. That is why both sides are able to see it differently. If the statistics were conclusive one way or the other it would be indisputable.

just my thoughts..... 

The evidence is clear; gun owners just don't want to see it. Half a million guns are stolen from private owners in the U.S. every year. That's where "criminals" get them.

The right of people to live safer lives outweighs your right to enjoy hunting and clay shooting if it means every nutcase has easy access to a gun.

And I can't tell you how sad I find it that your kids' school had armed police officers. What a way to spend your childhood.

Get a load of this statistic: The US makes up about 4.4 percent of the global population, but owns 42 percent of the world's civilian-owned guns. Mind-boggling.

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 12, 2015, 11:34
The evidence is clear; gun owners just don't want to see it. Half a million guns are stolen from private owners in the U.S. every year. That's where "criminals" get them.

Criminals have no trouble breaking the law and getting guns in countries with restrictive gun laws.
And that 'half million' number is made up, from a 'survey'.

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 12, 2015, 12:20
Get a load of this statistic: The US makes up about 4.4 percent of the global population, but owns 42 percent of the world's civilian-owned guns. Mind-boggling.

Ok. 4.4% of world population. 42% of civilian guns.
Now tell me the % of gun deaths worldwide. Given that it has 42% of the guns, it should have 42% of the deaths, right? Otherwise the data shows that despite the huge amount of guns, the death rate is lower than other countries with less guns.

1/3 of American households report owning a gun. That means about 1.5% of the world's population owns 42% of the guns. What the heck are you so afraid of? Surely you can't be afraid of the rest of us...we don't own any guns. I wish our country would wake up and join the rest of the civilized world. Well, 1/3 of our country, anyway.

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 12, 2015, 11:34
The evidence is clear; gun owners just don't want to see it. Half a million guns are stolen from private owners in the U.S. every year. That's where "criminals" get them.

The right of people to live safer lives outweighs your right to enjoy hunting and clay shooting if it means every nutcase has easy access to a gun.

And I can't tell you how sad I find it that your kids' school had armed police officers. What a way to spend your childhood.

It is not sad at all. My kids got to know the police and the police got to know the kids. That is where respect starts, at an early age. And you do not have to be sad for my kids, they have grown up to be just fine and not scarred for life. One is a commercial helicopter pilot that wants to work as a rescue or medical pilot when he has the experience. The other is training to be a registered nurse and volunteers at a large hospital. So they grew up and want to help others.

I can pretty much travel almost anywhere in the US and feel safe. It is people who keep saying, I have the right to feel safe that bothers me because you are safe in 95% of the places in the US.

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 12, 2015, 14:19
1/3 of American households report owning a gun. That means about 1.5% of the world's population owns 42% of the guns. What the heck are you so afraid of? Surely you can't be afraid of the rest of us...we don't own any guns. I wish our country would wake up and join the rest of the civilized world. Well, 1/3 of our country, anyway.

You didn't answer the question. With such firepower in their hands, how much % of world's gun deaths does this 42% guns account?

You are amazed that 1.5% of world's population owns 42% of the guns but you are not amazed that the same people with 42% of the guns does not account for 42% of gun murders?

Quote from: fujiko on October 12, 2015, 15:01
You are amazed that 1.5% of world's population owns 42% of the guns but you are not amazed that the same people with 42% of the guns does not account for 42% of gun murders?

I would suspect that most places in the world that have enormous rates of gun murders are also in the middle of some sort of civil war or are battling some form of organized terrorism. Unfortunately for them.

Fortunately for those of us who live in the US, we are not in the middle of a civil war, yet we *do* have a tremendous number of murders by gun each year.

How do you explain that in a nation supposedly at peace?

Quote from: fujiko on October 12, 2015, 15:01

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 12, 2015, 14:19
1/3 of American households report owning a gun. That means about 1.5% of the world's population owns 42% of the guns. What the heck are you so afraid of? Surely you can't be afraid of the rest of us...we don't own any guns. I wish our country would wake up and join the rest of the civilized world. Well, 1/3 of our country, anyway.

You didn't answer the question. With such firepower in their hands, how much % of world's gun deaths does this 42% guns account?

You are amazed that 1.5% of world's population owns 42% of the guns but you are not amazed that the same people with 42% of the guns does not account for 42% of gun murders?

No, of course I'm not amazed. Actually, if you take it further and apply the 20/80 rule, 20% of gun owners in the U.S. would own 80% of the guns in the U.S., or about 1/3 of all the civilian-owned guns in the world. That's about a half percent of the world's population owning 33% of the guns. That's absolutely pathological.

So when pro-gun Americans say it's a mental health issue, maybe that's what they mean?