Tuscon incident and gun control discussion

[His Divine Shadow]

It's hard even when the barn is closed and the horse tied down (europe)

[Ritterin Sophia]

I'm curious where you get that statistic on the gun deaths as it's outright incorrect. Police Shootings alone account for somewhere between 16-100 deaths from assault weapons (depending on the legal definition of assault weapons in the state 16 being the California definition) between 1975 and 1992 [1]. It's an admittedly low number but it's substantially higher than two. And while only "no more than .8% of homicides are perpetrated with rifles using military calibers" (admittedly not all of which are assault weapons) that still accounts for 60-100 or so murders yearly from assault weapons. Its small by comparison to the number of killing from other small arms but not insignificant enough to just ignore.

[1] Reply Brief of State of Colorado, at 13-15, Robertson v. Denver, No. 90CV603 (Denver Dist. Ct., Feb. 26, 1993)
[2]Glenn Harlan Reynolds, "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms under the Tennessee Constitution", 61 Tenn. L. Rev.

Do you know the difference between these?

[Todeswind]

No I do not.

Edit: They all look similar to the Automatic Kalashnikov Rifle but I know that's one of the most commonly copied weapons specifically because people like me can't tell the difference between the Chinese 56, the AK-47, or some crappy knockoff. Hell one of them could be an airsoft gun for all I know, they make them realistic enough to fool me.

[Ritterin Sophia]

No I do not.

Edit: They all look similar to the Automatic Kalashnikov Rifle but I know that's one of the most commonly copied weapons specifically because people like me can't tell the difference between the Chinese 56, the AK-47, or some crappy knockoff. Hell one of them could be an airsoft gun for all I know, they make them realistic enough to fool me.

They're all Norinco licensed AKs.

The top one is a Norinco Hunter, it's a semiautomatic firearm with an older style rifle trigger, more antiquated furnishing, and a more traditional stock. In most places this is not an Assault Weapon.

The middle one is however a semi-automatic Norinco Type 56. It's got all the features of a Type 56 except it can't fire in automatic. But because it has a bayonet and a pistol grip, it is qualified as an assault weapon.

The bottom one is a Type 56, capable of full automatic fire.

They all use the exact same operating method, magazines, and ammunition. Now what makes the semi-auto Type 56 so much more dangerous than the Hunter that you feel it needs to be regulated more? Is it the bayonet that's of no real use to a criminal? Or is it the pistol grip that makes the weapon more comfortable to hold?

[His Divine Shadow]

Well the first one is a semi auto rifle, so is the second one, the last one seems to be the actual assault weapon, I'm just going by the selector switch here.

EDIT: beaten I see.

[Todeswind]

No I do not.

Edit: They all look similar to the Automatic Kalashnikov Rifle but I know that's one of the most commonly copied weapons specifically because people like me can't tell the difference between the Chinese 56, the AK-47, or some crappy knockoff. Hell one of them could be an airsoft gun for all I know, they make them realistic enough to fool me.

They're all Norinco licensed AKs.

The top one is a Norinco Hunter, it's a semiautomatic firearm with an older style rifle trigger, more antiquated furnishing, and a more traditional stock. In most places this is not an Assault Weapon.

The middle one is however a semi-automatic Norinco Type 56. It's got all the features of a Type 56 except it can't fire in automatic. But because it has a bayonet and a pistol grip, it is qualified as an assault weapon.

The bottom one is a Type 56, capable of full automatic fire.


They all use the exact same operating method, magazines, and ammunition. Now what makes the semi-auto Type 56 so much more dangerous than the Hunter that you feel it needs to be regulated? Is it the useless bayonet that's only real use for a civilian is to look neat? Or is it the pistol grip that makes the weapon more comfortable to hold?

What is the difference in firing rates between them? In shots per second that is.

Edit: I agree that the logic in classifying the one weapon as an "assault rifle" because of the grip is stupid. It should be based on the ability to shoot on full automatic.

[Aaron]

650 rounds per minute for the full-auto Type 56. The others, as with all semi-auto, as fast as you can pull the trigger.

[Todeswind]

Ok, so what self defense situation or hunting situation would someone realistically find themselves part of in the united states that would require the use of 60ish rounds per second as opposed to as fast as your finger can pull?

Edit: Assuming that we somehow get people to regulate weapons based upon how fast they fire rather than what hand grip they have. Damn that seems stupid.

[Aaron]

They already are regulated. Full auto weapons have been severely restricted since the 30's IIRC in the US. Only a small number are available (those already in circulation), they require a special permit and the cost for the firearm itself is so high, you could buy dozens of regular firearms for the cost of one.

IIRC there hasn't even been a single crime committed with one. I'm sure Alyeska already explained this in the thread, he usually does.

Edit: I was wrong about the dates but if you don't care that it's wiki, this will tell you about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Ow ... ection_Act

[His Divine Shadow]

The whole discussion seems pointless, they're not gonna make full auto guns legal in america anymore and hardly anybody can afford the ones still grandfathered in.

[Ritterin Sophia]

What is the difference in firing rates between them?

Between the two semi-autos? There isn't a difference. They operate exactly the same.

A semi-auto fires one round per trigger pull until you run out of ammo, which for that typical AK mag is 30-rd. 'Assault Weapon' is literally a name for a semi-automatic versions of a military assault or battle rifles, semi-automatic 'machine guns', and semi-automatic subguns.

The automatic Type 56, though, that's 600-650 rpm; problem is they're so rare they cost ~$15000. As I said before legal full auto weapons have only been used twice in nearly seven decades. Illegal ones I can think of only one instance in Hollywood, but if your criminals already know how to convert a closed-bolt rifle into an automatic banning the guns won't do you any good, since with access to the kind of tools in a bicycle shop you can make a Sten Gun with little difficulty.

Ok, so what self defense situation or hunting situation would someone realistically find themselves part of in the united states that would require the use of 60ish rounds per second as opposed to as fast as your finger can pull?

Do you even read what we post? There are less than 275000 full automatics in circulation on the open market, half of those are owned by police departments, that leaves roughly 137000. Most of these are submachineguns and the cheapest ones are at minimum $1500. All the Assault Rifles cost upwards of $15000. Any decent machine gun is depending on the model going to be $15000 for something like a Browning .30cal from 1918 to $165000 for something that is in use today like a MAG 58/M240. These weapons are all registered, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms knows the exact location of every one of these weapons and who owns them.

[Todeswind]

The automatic Type 56, though, that's 600-650 rpm; problem is they're so rare they cost ~$15000. As I said before legal full auto weapons have only been used twice in nearly seven decades. Illegal ones I can think of only one instance in Hollywood, but if your criminals already know how to convert a closed-bolt rifle into an automatic banning the guns won't do you any good, since with access to the kind of tools in a bicycle shop you can make a Sten Gun with little difficulty.

Jesus Christ.

[Aaron]

The automatic Type 56, though, that's 600-650 rpm; problem is they're so rare they cost ~$15000. As I said before legal full auto weapons have only been used twice in nearly seven decades. Illegal ones I can think of only one instance in Hollywood, but if your criminals already know how to convert a closed-bolt rifle into an automatic banning the guns won't do you any good, since with access to the kind of tools in a bicycle shop you can make a Sten Gun with little difficulty.

Jesus Christ.

You didn't know that? Any decent machinist can build a firearm. Blacksmiths in Afghanistan build AK-47's for the locals, it's not an arcane science or anything, you just need the tools, plans and knowledge. Mind you, the chances of blowing ones face off are increased as opposed to buying one at the store.

[Todeswind]

You didn't know that? Any decent machinist can build a firearm. Blacksmiths in Afghanistan build AK-47's for the locals, it's not an arcane science or anything, you just need the tools, plans and knowledge. Mind you, the chances of blowing ones face off are increased as opposed to buying one at the store.

I had been led to believe that it was a more mechanically intensive skill yes.

[His Divine Shadow]

Depends on what quality you want, a bullet hose can be put together with the right tools, but you're not gonna assemble a Sig Sauer P226 in your garage.

[loomer]

The automatic Type 56, though, that's 600-650 rpm; problem is they're so rare they cost ~$15000. As I said before legal full auto weapons have only been used twice in nearly seven decades. Illegal ones I can think of only one instance in Hollywood, but if your criminals already know how to convert a closed-bolt rifle into an automatic banning the guns won't do you any good, since with access to the kind of tools in a bicycle shop you can make a Sten Gun with little difficulty.

Jesus Christ.

You didn't know that? Any decent machinist can build a firearm. Blacksmiths in Afghanistan build AK-47's for the locals, it's not an arcane science or anything, you just need the tools, plans and knowledge. Mind you, the chances of blowing ones face off are increased as opposed to buying one at the store.

I pointed this out earlier in reference to the Tucson shooting but no one seemed to notice except for whoever it was who called it a red herring. Loughner is exactly the kind of person who moves in some of the information exchange circles I do (right down to the belief in grammatical constructs being a means of brainwashing), and a lot of the time people will post guides to, gasp, making firearms you could turn out in a bike shop or a high school metal workshop, or homemade explosives, or any manner of other nasty little home made weapons.

[Aaron]

I pointed this out earlier in reference to the Tucson shooting but no one seemed to notice except for whoever it was who called it a red herring. Loughner is exactly the kind of person who moves in some of the information exchange circles I do (right down to the belief in grammatical constructs being a means of brainwashing), and a lot of the time people will post guides to, gasp, making firearms you could turn out in a bike shop or a high school metal workshop, or homemade explosives, or any manner of other nasty little home made weapons.

Yeah, there will always be folks willing to make their own stuff. I don't know if he was one of them but the info is certainly available.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Honestly you don't need an information exchange circle, this was my first hit when I Googled 'How to make a Sten gun'.

[Alyeska]

I love how butthurt you get over how a legitimate registry was used to enforce a legitimate gun ban.

The law was enforced in a manner that was difficult to evade! How horrible!

It's almost like complaining about speed cameras making it hard to get away with speeding.

Ryan, fuck off already. You pollute every single gun thread with your blithering stupidity. There is a reason your a Village Idiot.

[Thanas]

That's not my job, you're the one arguing we need to ban them.

Yes, I am arguing that having deadly weapons in wide circulation and with easy access to them is bad. You are the one saying the positives outweigh the negative, yet you have failed to provide any proof for that.

I'd say that universal healthcare just failed spectacularly in the United States. And if people are unstable, then there is even less reason to make it easy to own a gun.

That's an idiotic thing to say since it's not been tried.

a) The public option failed miserably
b) How does unstable people = more potential risks (especially with guns) not register with you?

Fair enough, what about baseball bats or lawn darts?

To my knowledge, there have been no mass clubbings or dartings in the United states - and does the murder rate with clubs exceed that with guns, especially with regards to the success ratio of attempts/murder?

A defensive handgun use is defined as the use of a handgun to deter or stop a violent crime and it's pretty straightforward, according to the National Self Defense Survey they found that a person's life was saved every 1.3 minute by a privately owned firearm.

Is there any independent data verifying that?

BTW- 3/4 of the time an attacker is a random person you don't know, so proving a need when you aren't capable of identifying the threat until you're being attacked is a horrible idea. And at least a quarter of defensive handgun uses are when you aren't at home.

That is not an answer to the question I asked. How many of the 33% of Americans have been victims of crimes and how many times would a gun either have prevented the crime or actually did prevent a crime? Because I for one do not believe that a full third of the American people are under constant threat of being robbed or mugged.

You're the one arguing they're comparable, not me.

No no, you were the one who made the claim that we cannot compare gun ownership rates in heavily militarized societies like WWI France and Germany to gun ownership in the US because the US has more handguns in general. What prompted you to say that?

I can't find any statistics for that, the only thing close is a news article about an off-duty police officer being shot by other police having mistaken him for an assailant.

# In 1999, 3,385 children and youth ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries.
# This is equivalent to about 9 deaths per day, a figure commonly used by journalists.
# The 3,385 firearms-related deaths for age group 0-19 years breaks down to:
* 214 unintentional
* 1,078 suicides
* 1,990 homicides
* 83 for which the intent could not be determined
* 20 due to legal intervention
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that in 1997, 2,514 children aged 0-14 were non-fatally injured by guns. In the same year, 30,225 young people aged 15-24 sustained nonfatal firearm injuries. These statistics include suicide attempts and both intentional and accidental shootings.

When researchers studied the 30,000 accidental gun deaths of Americans of all ages that occurred between 1979-1997, they found that preschoolers aged 0-4 were 17 times more likely to die from a gun accident in the 4 states with the most guns versus the 4 states with the least guns. Likewise, school kids aged 5-14 were over 13 times more at risk of accidental firearm death in the states with high gun ownership rates. The findings indicate that gun availability is associated with accidental death by shooting [4].

Most guns involved in self-inflicted and unintentional firearm injuries (that is, in suicides and accidents) came either from the victim's home or the home of a friend or relative [5].

Link

So we have 30.000 accidental gun deaths over 20 years. Wow. And that is just deaths, not counting injuries etc.

[eion]

I pointed this out earlier in reference to the Tucson shooting but no one seemed to notice except for whoever it was who called it a red herring. Loughner is exactly the kind of person who moves in some of the information exchange circles I do (right down to the belief in grammatical constructs being a means of brainwashing), and a lot of the time people will post guides to, gasp, making firearms you could turn out in a bike shop or a high school metal workshop, or homemade explosives, or any manner of other nasty little home made weapons.

Doing so would probably have brought him to the attention of law enforcement. It is a fact though that until he pulled the trigger he had done nothing illegal, and each of the actions you describe are in and of themselves illegal. Given the fact that he had limited privacy at home (since he lived with his parents), and no demonstrated mechanical aptitude I would be very doubtful of his ability to assembly anything more advanced than a pipe-bomb.

This was not a Tim McVeigh or a Ted Kaczynski, an intelligent individual able to carry out a plan, this was an unstable lunatic. He carried out his "plan" using the path of least resistance: he bought a gun legally, bought the extended magazines legally, and bought the bullets legally. Further restricting any of those three actions would have potentially reduced or prevented the attack by raising the action potential, either discouraging Loughner directly or by bringing him to the attention of law enforcement sooner.

[Broomstick]

I'm going to have to break up some things into discreet posts in my replies, otherwise it will get way too long. This one is in regards to elected officials and gun control in the US.

Strictly speaking not true - but you're not in a position to see it. Anti-gun politicians DO exist, DO get elected, and can be highly visible. Chicago's Mayor Daley, for example, has been stridently anti-gun for all seven terms as Chicago's mayor. He's the one that springs to mind first, but there are others.

He is not getting any visible airtime nationally. I am talking about national exposure.

He did better than that – not only did he support a hand gun ban for a city of 3 million people in 1982 (a law you approve of, correct?) before he was mayor, after being elected mayor he defended it all the way to the Supreme Court.

As part of that case, a number of amici curae briefs were given to the ScotUS in favor either the Chicago law or in deciding the second amendment did not apply to states, allowing for stricter gun controls in city and states, including things like handgun bans. Among the elected officals were the Federal level representatives Kay Bailey Hutchison (a Republican from Texas), John Tester (Montana Democrat), Mark Souder (Indiana Republican), and Mike Ross, and Arkansas Democrat. In addition, 32 states filed amici curae in favor of a decision that the second amendment did not apply to states and in favor of the Chicago hand gun ban.

Now, would you rather see politicians getting air time on Fox News or pursuing legal actions, such as taking a dispute to the Supreme Court, to attempt rational gun control?

Do you honestly think this wasn't covered in the news across the US? Seriously? This affected handgun laws in every city that had them, from San Francisco to the Chicago suburbs to New York City.

MacDonald vs. Chicago had repercussions across the entire nation. Unfortunately for gun control, they lost the case and in the US the second amendment DOES apply to the states, and by extension municipal governments. The end result is that citizens – outside of the mentally ill, felons, and similar who have had there 2nd amendment rights revoked – can not be barred from possessing guns in their homes. However, the SCcotUS did leave open banning guns in places like schools, government buildings, and so forth so now gun control advocates are trying to find ways to restrict gun possession to ONLY one's home, which would be consistent with owning one for self-defense. (Of course, there is still the problem of gun accidents and suicides in the home, but no one said it was a perfect solution or would make everyone happy).

So... do you really want me to look for 30 second sound bites from elected officials, or would you prefer to see an elected official such as Mayor Daley not only impose gun control on a major US city but fight all the way to the top to defend it? Which, really, is an example of more effective work towards the goal? Daley didn't talk about it, he did something about it, and worked at it for decades.

I'll also point out that the SCotUS decision was split 5-4, with a change in the court membership the next time it could go the other way.

Within a month Chicago had a new gun law, again the strictest in the nation. Note that that site is CBS news, a company that has nationwide affiliates so that was not a local story.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is also on record as a gun control advocate, and on January 11 called together the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition, a nationwide group of big city mayors, to discuss what could be done in reaction to the recent Tuscon shooting. The group was founded by NYC and Boston mayors in 2006, the CEO is Chicago's Daley. There are about 600 mayors on the membership list, and among them are mayors of the largest US cities. It would be ridiculous to assert such individuals or such an organization has no political power. Indeed, several US presidents were mayors of New York City on their rise to power so some of these city offices aren't trifling but can carry great influence. Bloomberg has also involved himself in gun control outside NYC borders, including backing an ad in the Virginia governor's race

Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, also a man of national prominence and influence, is also pushing for gun control. I'm pretty sure you've heard of him, he got quite a bit of airtime in 2001 for an unrelated matter.

So there actually are people working not just locally but on boarder levels, some of them are elected officials including members of Congress such as those who filed amici curae in MacDonald v. Chicago, and they're getting national exposure. The recent SCotUS decisions have been 5-4 splits, meaning one or two new SCotUS justices may well tip the balance. Despite all the screaming and howling we're a lot closer to tipping the balance in favor of gun control than a lot of people realize. Or maybe that's why there's so much screaming and howling?

Perhaps it's not a viscerally satisfying as an executive order from the PotUS, or Congress passing a law, but as I've already said the US isn't as centralized as many other nations. A lot of things change via local reform first. You've already given examples, such as the north states gradually abolishing slavery and segregation as part of changes in race relations in the US. Equality for homosexuals and same sex marriage is likewise occurring in fits and starts rather than a top-down decree. This is how it happens here. I maintain that some of these activities are moving the country towards more rational gun control.

[Broomstick]

Guns and slaves

You are not getting it, really. For the analogy to slaveholders to be valid, I suggest you provide examples that it is the main source of income for the Gunholders.

For people owning only one or two slaves there wasn't a lot of income from those slaves. In fact, people who owned small numbers tended to use them as domestic servants which they would have had to otherwise hire, but since they owned the slaves they had to feed and clothe and house them which cost money. It analogous to someone who owns a car to get to and from work – the car or the slave performed a valuable household function, and the slave may have enabled the householder to spent more time at work rather than cleaning house, or the householder could have more leisure time, or his wife owned a slave as a nanny/babysitter, but the cost of such ownership may have eaten up much of the economic gains.

There was also a brisk trade in slaves for sex – either one bought as a sex slave, or owners of brothels who were profiting off whoring out slaves.

While the large plantations with massive slave holdings get most of the historical attention they were by no means the only folks owning slaves, and it wasn't the only use for slaves. It's like saying the only reason for owning a truck is long distance cargo hauling – it's not. That doesn't mean a tradesman who uses his truck to transport tools doesn't need a truck, or his truck isn't important to him economically even if it isn't the main source of his income.

Of course, since guns and slaves have different purposes the two practices aren't entirely analogous. However, gun producers, gun dealers, and gun shops all have an economic stake in gun ownership and have guns as their primary income. So do those who produce ammunition, sell ammunition, people who repair guns... it's not the only economic slot in the nation but it does exist.

I don't discount the influence of social and cultural factors, not at all. People own guns for many different reasons, just as people used to own slaves for many different reasons, and sometimes did so even when it didn't make economic sense.

A difference -the vast majorit of slaves were bought for economic reasons. I doubt very much the same is true for people owning guns.

While that is true, as I pointed out slaves and guns have different functions. You buy slaves to utilize their labor. You buy guns to shoot things. I don't recall ever hearing of slaves in the US being used in sporting competitions (though I believe they were in Rome) but people do buy guns to compete in target shooting. The it's not an economic gain does not automatically invalidate sport shooting as a legitimate past time. High status women in the antebellum US would buy slaves to care for their children – as task they could have performed themselves so it certainly didn't arise out of need, and there was a cost to maintaining a black nanny so it wasn't economically advantageous, either, even if it was a widespread practice.

With cars, yes, they have economic utility when used to get to and from a well paying job, but that's not the sole motivating factor. People choose their cars for status, choices can driven by fashion, some people buy more than one car, sometimes several cars, so it's not just bare utility that's driving the choices here.

So... there are some for whom guns are their livelihood – there are others for whom it's a sport (target shooting) or part of a sport (hunting) or part of making a living (subsistence hunters), and those for whom status is involved, or fashion.

There are also a fair number of people inheriting guns from relatives, just as slaves used to be inherited. But that shouldn't be surprising, as both are property.

[Broomstick]

Then you are advocating civil war. If you go in by force you will be met by force. After all, protection against unreasonable government intrusion was one of the reasons the second amendment was written in the first place, and forcible taking of guns will trigger the feeling that the founding fathers were right all along about the population needing protection from their own government.

Really now? Outlawing guns not licensed or outlawing gun owners who will not be able to meet permit standards equals civil war now? Are you that much in fear of gun owners? I doubt very few of them - except the milita guys - will actually rise up and fire. Evidence in much more violent societies (Germany after WWI, France etc.) suggests otherwise.

This was already covered. If you outlawed guns today you'd turn probably 1/3 to ½ of the population into criminals as soon as the ink dried. Realistically, do you think such a law could be enforced? How do you intend to enforce it without the use of force?

It's not a matter of the masses rising up. All it takes is for a few to shoot back and be shot and the general public will start to see it as the government attacking the citizenry. This will not end well.

The only way to defuse such a thing would be a “grandfather clause” allowing those who already own guns to keep them – but then, that would defeat the purpose of the exercise, wouldn't it?

There is no way to forcibly remove the guns already in private hands to any meaningful level without bloodshed. You could make guns illegal, but only a small percentage of gun owners will hand them over. A lot of other will hide their guns. If you attempt to use force a certain few will surrender their weapons but a substantial number will either deny they have weapons, or use them. The law would be unenforceable without the use of lethal force against the population.

And without moving the debate you are not oging to see any change. I am going to tell you right now that without severely stricter controls and much more restrictive laws you are not going to see any change in your lifetime.

The stumbling block for you seems to be that you don't acknowledge anything less than a national law. That's not the way it works here.

We have cities with populations greater than entire nations (New York City, for example, has a population greater than all of Finland). Between New York City and Chicago 10 million people came under a handgun ban, yet you refuse to see that as any sort of gun control progress. Keep adding all the other cities with gun control to that number, that's a LOT of people.

The Federal government not only will not, but given recent SCotUS decision it probably can not, pass any sort of sweeping, highly restrictive gun laws across the nation. Such laws will, of necessity, have to be done on the state level or lower. Doing it that way will be considerably easier than either amending the constitution, or convening a constitutional convention, which is the only way the Feds would or could pass such laws. Unless you advocate overturning our basic system of government you'll have to work within the framework given – and that means change on state and local levels. Which is occurring.

While I'd say it was likely that the murders of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcom X were related to segregation, and the Black Panther Party murder accusations were, I'm not convinced segregation was the impetus for the killing of either President John F. Kennedy or his brother Robert Kennedy during Robert's presidential campaign. I'm not clear why Alabama Governor George Wallce was shot by Arthur Bremer, a white man from Wisconsin, although I seem to recall something about Bremer not being able to get to Nixon and deciding to settle for Wallace. Granted the Weather Underground weren't shooting people... no, they used bombs, including getting one into the Pentagon that successfully detonated.

[snip image to save space]

They were very much communist and declared their intent to violently overthrow the US government. Not all the civil unrest during the 1960's through mid 1970's in America was wrapped up in segregation and the struggle for black equality.

Way to miss the point, which is that about one year of gun violence in the USA produces more deaths than the riots. Heck, more police officers are shot each year than died in the riots. But please, do not let that stop you from going on about your extensive knowledge about militia groups in the USA, which is so very tangential to this thread.

Excuse me, your question was:

Oh please. When has the US populace ever responded to the Government oppressing them with violence in the last few generations?

You first of all did not limit that question to just guns, but rather “violence”, which is why I included the Weather Underground.

And I did not mention any riots in my reply, nor did I mention militia groups. Most of those involved with the above, aside from the Weather Underground, were presumably individuals. The assassinations mentioned were performed with guns. The attempted assassinations were performed with guns. JFK's was presumed a lone gunman. Robert Kennedy's has long been rumored to have been a hit from organized crime, which if true would make it not a lone gunman but organized crime isn't normally described as a “militia” and in any case, it's a rumor and unproven. Wallace was a lone nut, near as I can tell. Malcom X advocated violence when peaceful change failed, and is rumored to have been a government hit though, again, unproven and it might have been a lone nut. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination was supposedly a lone gunman but there have long been rumors of a conspiracy (if not several of them) and it was no secret there were threats to him – he was at the place he was shot because his flight to Memphis had been delayed due to bomb threats. The Black Panthers both killed other people (some members served time for murder) and were also killed by what is generally considered a city conspiracy that may or may not have involved the FBI. Even if all the allegations against various levels of government were untrue, in the 1960's you sure had an uptick of people shooting other people that were perceived as threats somehow, and a lot of them perceived the government as the enemy.

The weather underground weren't what would be called a “militia group”, in today's terms they were terrorists, though they regarded themselves as liberators of the proletariat, that is “freedom fighters” and felt the use of violence to overthrow the US government was justified. Maybe they were smart enough to realize guns wouldn't do the job and that's why they used bombs. Nonetheless, they did feel the US government was oppressive and did use violence as a means to an end.

Next time, if you want to limit “violence” to guns please be more specific in your wording.

[Broomstick]

As I said, it would take an incredible psyche changing event to make them all hand them over.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for gun control, but right now, the US is a lost cause.

I don't believe that. I believe that there is potential for change - it is not as if the vast majority of US citizens are gun owners, for one, indicating that it is really easy to live without one and not get mugged/robbed/killed/whatever.

Thanas, an estimated 40-50% of US households own at least one gun, and polls have repeatedly shown that 3/4 of the population support the right to own guns, which means even a lot of people who don't own guns themselves are in favor of the right to own guns or, conversely, do NOT favor banning them. You can't assume that just because an American doesn't own a gun they don't care or don't have an opinion on gun ownership or that they favor stricter laws.

The self defence argument is not going to fly as most Americans do not constantly live under threat.

No, I don't think it works that way - I may not own a gun myself but that doesn't mean I don't recognize self-defense as a valid argument. After all, I'm well aware that there are neighborhoods more dangerous than my own, I know some people work in dangerous areas and thus have a reasonable argument for self-defense, some jobs require carrying a gun (police being the obvious, but there are others), and so on. "Self defense" is an argument that does carry weight even with many who don't own guns.

US society is one of the most dynamic there is, with mood changes by the decade.

True - which is both a strength and a weakness.

I do believe we can change. Have you ever seen the old Twilight Zone episode "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet"? In it the main character at one point pulls out a gun while on an airplane and starts shooting - at the time it was filmed no one in the US saw anything incongruous with the notion that someone could carry a loaded gun onto a commercial airplane. Today....completely different situation. Outside of hunters being transported to campsites in remote regions and Alaskan bush pilots it is no longer acceptable for passengers to carry guns on planes, and a lot of folks aren't too happy that some pilots are allowed to no matter what tests they have passed and approvals they get to do so. So yes, our attitudes towards guns can change, and have changed. I believe they can continue to change. However, you still have to work within the limitations of the society as it is right now.

Perhaps there are other nations where the government could decree "turn in your guns" and it would work without major problems. It could not, however, work in the US at this time.

I'd say that universal healthcare just failed spectacularly in the United States. And if people are unstable, then there is even less reason to make it easy to own a gun.

Not to go off much on a tangent, but we have never had universal healthcare in the US - you can't say it "failed" when it hasn't happened! If you're referring to that recent bullshit in the House of Representatives to repeal recent changes it's political grandstanding - the Senate won't go along, and even if it died, Obama would veto it and the Republicans don't have the 2/3 majority needed to overturn a presidential veto.

Aside from that, though - IF we had decent mental healthcare in this country and decent access to it Loughner might have been in treatment instead of running around crazy, meaning he might have either been well enough to NOT be a danger, or locked up as a danger to self and others, and certainly it would have been harder for him to obtain a gun even under Arizona's admittedly lax laws. In this particular case there is, actually, a connection between lack of health care and a violent act.

Cars are dangerous as well, in fact going outside you can have a fatal accident, in fact you can die just getting out of bed, oh wait cancel that you can die just laying in your bed. At what point do you decide the chance of an accident is too much.

False analogy as handguns provide no positive benefit except a somewhat nebulous and not-backed up safety increase. A car on the other hand is necessary to live and earn a living. A private handgun is not unless you are a criminal.

Incorrect - even in the US you don't have to own a car to make a living. I was comfortably middle class in Chicago despite not owning a car for most of the 15 years I lived there.

On the other hand, some jobs in the US do require you to carry a gun (although it's not uncommon for the employer to provide one). Certain security jobs, for example - armored car personnel, certain types of couriers, certain categories of security guard, for example.

Admittedly, it's a nitpick.

BTW - even under strict German gun laws you'd be allowed to own a firearm if you can show a legitimate need for self defense.

I'd be happy, for purposes of continuing to discussion, to take "self defense gun ownership is allowed" as a given, but then you have the question of what constitutes legitimate self defense reasons.

The man I currently work with, for example, has long carried a gun for self-defense. He has worked in some exceedingly bad inner city locations. He has shot people attempting to rob him, or who shot at him first. Not that he always reaches for the gun - that last time someone tried to rob him, which happened at a gas station, the surveillance video clearly shows his attacker attempting to drag him out of his truck and hitting him several times before my friend picked up a length of metal pipe (he'd been on a plumbing job that day, and it was leftover scrap) and hitting the guy over the skull with it. Clearly, although he lives in a very safe neighborhood he works in some very rough places and clearly is at risk. Given that, I'd say he has a very good claim on "self-defense". Well, what about someone living in those neighborhoods? He once came out to fix the front door on a unit he owned in Gary. The tenant had been the target of several would be burglars attempting to break in. The result was one destroyed door, one dead guy on the porch, and blood trails from at least two others who had ran away (one of them later found unconscious from blood loss in nearby) - she had shot them through the door. Was that legitimate self-defense or not? (The local police said it was, and she got to keep the gun, but it wouldn't surprise me if others argued differently). My spouse once shot someone attempting to steal our pickup who turned on him when discovered - granted it was a crossbow and not a pistol, but crossbows can be just as lethal - was that legitimate or not? (The local sheriff's office said it was, but hey, they're crazy Americans, right?)

No, they don't count, because none of those nations are comparable in any form or fashion to the US, the US is by far larger than the European states and has far more firearms owners per capita and far more firearms in total.

a) What is your data proving that Firearm ownership is higher in the USA today than it was in European countries after WWI, when gun laws were introduced?
b) How does this in any way relate to the possible success and failure of gun laws?

Because not all countries are alike.

You know, we outlawed beer in the US for awhile - I have a hard time imagining you could do that in Germany. Vodka was outlawed, too, but I can't imagine that working in Russia. Or outlawing wine in France. It was possible in the US because the US views alcohol differently, and has a different cultural relationship with alcohol

Granted, alcohol and guns aren't exactly the same thing, but it's an example where eliminating something in one society is more possible than eliminating it in another.

There really is a deep rooted difference in how American society regards guns and how many other cultures regard guns. Failure to acknowledge this in a gun control debate that also discusses the US means you ignoring a significant factor in the equation.

Rob Wilson is right - it would take an enormous change in the collective psyche to do what you have proposed in several posts.