The problem with Gun control

MadHatter wrote: If they cannot properly enforce it now how is more going to help?

In the US, it probably cannot except perhaps for semi-auto rifles. But in places where there is not so many guns, then the nature of the enforcement changes depending on the problem being enforced. In the US its a gun dense environment with a high amount of weapon transactions, with so many moving parts each one prone to error. And when a system has an error it can propagate to a failure elsewhere in the system. A simple system is less prone to that, and can more easily be monitored for errors. Gun control in an environment where guns are not prolific means more focused effect which means greater capacity for controlling outcomes. Errors still are inevitable but anyone expecting perfection is fooling themselves. I'd say the problem people should be thinking about is not so much how it has or has not worked in the past, but how the pressures of the future might change the statistics... with increasing population densities and higher lethality in weapons being a rather suitable petri dish for levels of poverty and substance abuse to drive rapid and dynamic mental health crisis and other factors associated with crime. From the outside it looks like the Police in the US are struggling to operate as effectively for the community in face of the weaponization of the population, and so continuing that trend only benefits the criminals to the detriment of society. Which is great if your rich, but makes it tougher for everyone else. Criminals will always seek to have more bang then their target, and of coure also the easiest other way to do that is to outnumber them by basic organization and planning. So increasing the weapon capability of oneself as a measure of self defense is in no way a guarantee of some state of security, just a measure of increase to ones security which needs to be seen as not hard to overcome. When this is understood for what it really is, then one can better assess the other factors impacting on society at large IMO. But we've all different opinions and bias. I'm arguing against my self for example... I'd love a couple of AR's, but then I wouldn't want my neighbour to have any, so.... trust no-one!!!

JamesSand wrote:
I'm not really fussed about that bloke, or any other bloke in Texas - I'm remarking upon your sort of handballing that when things go bad it's because the government didn't have enough control, but the idea of the government enforcing some sort of control over guns (rather than any other aspect of your life) is so distasteful to you.

I get it, you believe guns save lives, except in all the instances when they don't, in which case it's probably the governments fault they didn't have exactly the right rules in those circumstances to control that particular event.

Well you would lose that bet according to the study I already linked.

Debatable.

Never been to Harvard, couldn't even find it on a map.
Since I'm gambling, I'll double-down and say no one involved in that study could find where I live on a map either.

You are either trolling or deliberately playing ignorant. It is not a matter of more control. I made that clear. I said they cannot enforce the control they have now so more would not help. Further, you do not know Harvard one of the most prestigious Ivy league schools in the world right ok.

Well if the situation is out of control in regards to gun ownership, then they either declare martial law or remove all limits and let the rich kill the poor for sport. I'd suggest the reason the system has errors is because its too complex - and that is not a problem with gun control, but rather the problem being a lack of gun control trying to be controlled. IMO

You are either trolling or deliberately playing ignorant. It is not a matter of more control. I made that clear. I said they cannot enforce the control they have now so more would not help. Further, you do not know Harvard one of the most prestigious Ivy league schools in the world right ok.

Adder more or less said it - The system (whatever it is) is evidently so convoluted and complex (lets say internally, with whatever reporting systems they use) that they can't manage it.

Simply saying "Well, if something isn't working, nothing will" is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

What I do when something doesn't work in my job, is I go out onto the floor, I watch the workers see where they are making errors, and I change the process so that a blind monkey can understand it.

A blind monkey (or even a law enforcement officer!) can understand "Anyone except me with guns is suspect" and enforce that.

Evidently they (monkeys?) can't manage to keep track of who is who in the zoo (happy accident) with whatever measures and supposed checks and balances they are using now (as you yourself identified)


What the hell is an ivy league university?

Do the people who go there know I won the JamesSand Award for Achievement in the Field of Excellence for the last six years running?


Your country can barely keep track of who has been discharged from the air force for assaulting their wife, why should I trust them to educate students and hand out degrees that are worth the fancy paper they are printed on?

(See, I'm making a point...a bit like you.....The system doesn't work, so evidently the whole thing should just be canned. For all of your universities, you can't keep track of your soldiers. Must not be very good unis )


For all that, you'll be pleased to know as I sit here typing this, I'm committing two crimes (that I know of)

Ah, I've been all distracted by this inane debate, what was the subject again? The Problem with gun control?

Oh, well, there is no problem with gun control - have a national register and criminal history checks for firearms and firearm ownership, make it federal so random states can't do their own thing (honestly that's the dumbest thing in both of our countries, the states making up their own stupid rules) and stop being bloody sooks. You can still have your guns, but basically it becomes harder for the sorts of people who hold pistols sideways or shoot from the hip to have theirs.

People will probably still get shot, I'm not going to say that regulation is a magic bullet (heh heh), but at least they'll only get shot by people who seemed like such nice people

No, Kyrin.. I know they don't. If they did, the world would be VASTLY different. What do you think all the old prophecies are about? The Darkness hangs over the world like a cloud right now. I know you can feel it.. Why do you think some philosophies tell you "darkness and light" coexist? If you thought, as Lucas did, that darkness was a perversion of The Light, instead of two sides of the same coin. Wouldn't you seek to determine its source?

Now I see how people believe in that One World Utopia idea. Which goes against human nature itself. People watching too much tv. Lol

Even Joseph Campbell knew the dangers of that "service to the state" type of thinking that some people have. We are, the public at large, the society. It is our obligation to respect the rights and property of every individual. It's our obligation as jedi to help maintain the harmony of life within our sphere of influence. That is how we HELP maintain the balance Senan.

You're not supposed to emulate the movie Jedi. Following government policy instead of the will of The Force. That's why they got knocked off. Self righteousness in their mission of upholding galactic law blinded them to the reality of their situation until it was too late. Just as our faith in Man's Law will..

As Jedi, or at least followers of The Force, we prevent ALMOST ALL violence, and other disruptions, from occurring through knowledge and peace. Creating a more civilized society. Law won't make people moral. It's not even really for that purpose. It's supposed to help resolve conflicts. That's why one person can take another to court. People become all zealous about some certain moral revelation and seek to create their own "private law" to enforce it on everyone else. Whether or not their code violates the person of someone else.. Much worse is when darkness uses the fire of zealotry for its own purpose. Greed, corruption, war, deception, all through the power of law..

Lol, I wonder how many people know that, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Isn't just talking about people? I didn't know at first..

There's something else I see here. The reason why States create their own laws is because a federation isn't a nation. A State is though. That is the ACTUAL definition of the term. If I'm not mistaken, it's even in the U.S. code.

Look how easily people dismiss them. Not knowing that them being sovereign besides the liberty they decide to share by compact. Is the natural way of things. Most people think federal governments are totally supreme. That is exactly opposite of the truth. Who or where did you get these ideas from? How do people think governments, and by affect the people who manipulate, are sovereign and not the people? Or that government is the state and not the people? I think it's a lot of deception in language personally..

To redirect the conversation, the problem with gun control, and most controls in general, is that it masks the real issue. It focuses on the numbers. Not violence itself. You'll forever be adding more and more restrictions until man is trapped in a cage of its own design. No freedom to speak of.. and that's where some of "leaders" are taking us. It's a slippery slope. One person says "ARs". Another includes "mentally ill". Then another says get rid of them all together.. and there you have it. People like Obama say, "most nations don't have this problem" that's because they exchanged liberty for safety. Now they're at the mercy of TPTB.. The multinational corporations, orders, financial institutions, and other zealots that manipulate law for their own selfish purposes.

Jaedon Adar-Barnaby wrote: No, Kyrin.. I know they don't. If they did, the world would be VASTLY different. What do you think all the old prophecies are about? The Darkness hangs over the world like a cloud right now. I know you can feel it.. Why do you think some philosophies tell you "darkness and light" coexist? If you thought, as Lucas did, that darkness was a perversion of The Light, instead of two sides of the same coin. Wouldn't you seek to determine its source?

I dont think you can characterize any govt as either benevolent or sinister. Govts don't have intentions, they are just collections of people. It is the people that utilize those institutions for benevolent or sinister means. The govt has nothing to do with those intentions - just like a gun in the hand of any individual. If those intentions are sinister do we ban govts? No we remove the individuals.

As for the idea that a darkness hangs over the world, I would disagree. I don't see darkness as a separate distinct "thing". There is no darkness or lightness, even if you consider the darkness a perversion of the light. That cant be either if the light does not exist. Instead its just the utilization of energy in intent as either benevolent of sinister. Once again we dont ban the dark, we deal with the individual - who is the true source of the sinister action.

Anything less than this is just curing the symptoms but not the cause. Guns are a symptom, not the cause.

How is it that light and darkness exists in the physical, below, but not spiritually, above?

As above, so below..

I'm not characterizing government per say. I'm criticising the use of its power. Which is why the founders of these United States put tight restrictions on it. Putting in its place..

If God, The Force, is sovereign. Government cannot be.. It would be treating government, and those who manipulate it, as gods..

Jaedon Adar-Barnaby wrote: How is it that light and darkness exists in the physical, below, but not spiritually, above?

As above, so below..

I'm not characterizing government per say. I'm criticising the use of its power. Which is why the founders of these United States put tight restrictions on it. Putting in its place..

If God, The Force, is sovereign. Government cannot be.. It would be treating government, and those who manipulate it, as gods..

Your talking about two different kinds of darkness. One is physical, the other is a metaphysical personification of intent. In the end, its not real, only the individual is real.

I don't think either God/the force or govts are sovereign. In the first it is the will of the individual and in the second it is the will of the people that is sovereign.