"It's always too soon to talk about gun control"

[hazard]

Which is part of the issue here.  Think about how Europe has developed over the last 200 years.  Not very long ago (at least, not long in the grand scheme of things), most of your countries were being ruled through monarchies - many of which had pretty clear ideas about who gets to use swords and armor.  Mainly, that was people they felt they could trust to not do something like stage a revolt.

Here?  We had our revolt and only by luck did we get through it with our independence from the British Empire.  And that makes for a VERY different perspective for the general populace.

Black?

I'm Dutch.

I know, I know, that means little to you in what connection there would be to the USA's history.

Let me explain. Way back when, in the mid 16th century, the Protestant movement and the Reformation were in full swing across Europe as the Catholic Church faced heavy criticism internally and externally for its excesses and abuse of power. The Calvinistic variant of Protestantism in particular took hold in the Dutch people. However, the Spanish Habsburgs, strict and staunch Catholics, were the ones in charge of the Netherlands. This was... inconvenient, when displeasure with the Catholic Church as well as an increasing tax burden partially intended as a measure to punish non-Catholics for their apostasy resulted in a wave of rushes on lavishly decorated Catholic churches and the destruction of much of the deemed excessive decoration of those churches.

The response to that kicked off what is known as the Eighty Years War, and was an eighty years long conflict (with a 12 year truce part way in to let both sides recover a bit) between the mighty Spanish Empire and the much smaller Republic of Seven United Netherlands. It eventually ended in a much strained Spain yielding to the Dutch demand of independence as part of the conclusion of the peace established after the Thirty Years War settling much of the religious strife in Europe.

And yet, despite the fact that the United Provinces won their independence by force of arms. And yet, despite the fact that they faced some 80 years of violent religiously fueled conflict on a global stage, including their homelands. And yet, despite the fact that, you know, they were a republic without a monarch (although the House of Orange was held in such esteem and effectively ran the military they were effectively considered royalty by other nations), they never developed the gun culture the US has.

And that despite the fact that in feudal times even the peasants were expected to have some degree of military armaments available to them, even if it's just a thick layer of padded wool, a spear and shield. Because a hue and cry needed a great many capable militia men to respond in the face of danger.

As far as I can tell the entire reason the United Provinces and the later Kingdom of the Netherlands never developed a culture that fetishizes weapon or gun ownership to the extent the US has is because at no point did the Dutch think it necessary. In fact, after the Napoleonic Wars settled European Dutch territory was generally so peaceful the only people with guns were those using them as part of their profession, with few exceptions. Because you didn't need them otherwise.

Hey, you said it, not me.  

Actually, that's part of what vexes me with the US. So many brilliant and well spoken minds who could make the US the best place to live, period, of the entire world, and a beacon of righteousness and justice all aspire to equal. And nobody listens until they've shouted themselves mute and died. If they ever listen.

But on that note... yeah, that's part of the issues with our socioeconomic system I'd like to see fixed.  And the Conservatives that are in charge right now don't want to fix that because they will quickly find themselves being outed by the lower-class

Yeah. To be honest, the US political system worked when it was developed, and it worked until the invention of the telegraph. After that though... the entire political system needs to be reorganised, thoroughly.

You're conveniently ignoring one important bit there.

"...the right of the people..."

That's a very important word there, "people".  In fact, it's right in the preamble of our Constitution - the very first words in the very first line.  From the word go we decided on a system of government that derives its power from its people and not any one person or group of persons.  Everyone that is a citizen of this nation has the right to say, "No, this is not what I wanted."

And the ultimate expression of that sentiment is by way of revolution.  The Second Amendment guarantees that so we have the option to overthrow our government by force of arms should it fail to represent and serve We, The People.

Ehm no, it doesn't.

The Second Amendment guarantees that the States have the means to force the Federal Government to heed its will by threat of arms. Not the people, for all that the States act on the behalf of their people. The Constitution of the United States defines the rights and duties of the Federal Government and leaves all other matters in the hands of the hands of the States and the people. All the Second Amendment says is 'the Federal Government will not restrict access the people's access to weapons so that the States have access to a well organised militia to defend themselves.'

How those States organize and equip their militia, or even if they raise one, is a matter for the States to decide upon, including if they wish to restrict access to weapons to part of their population and what part of that population.

But in many ways the Second Amendment was settled about 150 years ago when the Federal Government declared 'no more slavery,' the Southern States said 'no, we will have slavery and defend our right to hold slaves with force of arms' and the Federal Government's response to that was 'that's cute, but you are not going to hold slaves any longer' and successfully imposed their will on the States by force of arms.

I never said that it wasn't a mess.  That was my point entirely.  That is what we need to fix.

Now, I just had the epiphany that you're not seeing this issue the way I'm seeing it.

You're seeing it as something that REQUIRES police action on a broad scope.

Now, I don't really blame you for that sentiment.  It's a very knee-jerk thing: "Make it illegal so it won't happen again!"  It's laudable...

Actually I don't.

My apologies if I was unclear, I have no issue whatsoever with the concept of a population with access to weapons with the understanding they are handling those things with the required care and caution. It's just that the US general public does not by any measure inspire in me the confidence that they would handle weapons with said required care and caution. Worse, even the US own law enforcement officials, who should be held to higher standards of conduct on the job at minimum when it comes to weapon handling does not inspire that confidence.

They inspire in me the exact opposite. The confidence that many of the armed individuals I might meet in the US do not adequately handle their weapons. In many cases do not know how to adequately handle their weapons. And that because of that incompetence not only may but will hurt innocent people either by accident or deliberately. I see that as reason enough to restrict access to guns, in the public interest and for the purposes of national security if nothing else.

Does this mean extensive police action to enforce gun ownership restrictions? Probably. But only because I see no manner in which the US gun culture can be transformed in such a way that adequate responsibility for gun handling will be instilled in the US general public to the point such a thing is unnecessary.

I'm not saying that we should not try to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally deranged.  I apologize if I was not clear on that matter before, but you were arguing so vehemently for blanket bans that it got lost in the signal noise.

The thing is that this is what a overhauled, reformed, and digitized background check system is supposed to be for.  A state-operated mental health system would have the ability to red-flag a person in a database that has mental issues that renders them a danger to themselves and/or other, and should not be permitted access to firearms (or any weapons for that matter).

This would only function if all legal sales of firearms are required to use this system, leaving aside illegal sales because they wouldn't bother. This includes thus also those occasions where currently no such requirement exists.

I won't touch on confiscation of already owned firearms as that's a whole other ball of wax, but the idea here is that this is supposed to keep people who should not have guns from buying them.

But that's the thing.  You can't just go all HULK SMASH on this.  It is a far more complex and delicate issue than you think it is.  The regulation needs to be light-touch, laser-precise, and backed up by a competent system.

Well, that's fair.

As for the system itself?

Fix mental health - preferably by enacting some form of single payer/universal health care system so it can be better regulated.  And really, I suspect that by rolling all healthcare subsidiaries (ie: all of Medicare and Medicaid) will greatly streamline the system and make it more cost-effective.

Really, we just need to have it so any damn fool can walk into a hospital and get treatment for anything, and walk out again without ever worrying about any sort of medical bills.  Your citizenship is your health care plan.

Actually, the biggest cost burden (outside of the medical sector vastly inflating their bills in the name of profit) is administrative, mostly to do with doctors having to handle the administrative burden of billing insurance companies appropriately. Rolling all healthcare subsidiaries into the same administrative checkbox would help, but allowing the medical professionals to shift the administrative burden to administrative personnel who don't need more than an insurance card's data stapled to a short form describing whatever procedure and prescription was performed and provided, if any. Because there's a vast maze of insurance companies and policies in the US.

The other part that would really help is just tossing it under the single payer system and the government walking up to various medical companies saying 'this is what we want, you can bid per state, and if we believe you are cheating us we're eminent domaining the shit out of your patents.'

Enact a Federal $15/hr minimum wage so people can have peace of mind without practically killing themselves.

This would actually be a bad idea. The base cost of living is not equal across the entire USA. Cities are vastly more expensive than rural areas, to the point that 15 dollars an hour would ruin companies in at least some rural areas, while those living in cities may not make ends meet with such a wage.

That is not to say no minimum wage is required, far from it. It just can't be a blanket minimum wage, it has to be tailored to the specific requirements of a given region.

Toughen up laws on regulating corporations so they can't run roughshod over everyone.

You ideally have a government that will run roughshod over the corporations on the public's behalf if and when and only if and when required. But laws that force corporations to handle as equals with their consumers and not do things that threaten the public's health and safety would be good enough.

I got other wild ideas that might help as well.  Like in exchange for the higher minimum wage, all but eliminate business taxes and relabel it as a 'use of infrastructure' tax.  In fact, have that revenue earmarked for the infrastructure and the management of those revenues made completely transparent so companies don't feel jilted about it.  This will encourage the 'trickle down economics' that conservatives love to go on about, and hopefully create more jobs to employ more Americans and bring them out of poverty.

Sorry, trickle down economics does not work. Not in any way. If you shoved 10 million dollars a month towards a rich and big company's CEO he won't suddenly meaningfully impact the economy even more than he already does. No, he's going to use that money to buy more stock and expand his riches by gaining interests in more companies, rather than anything else. He does not buy products, or services, in any greater amount than he already does. His 'demand' for greater amounts or value of products is completely supply independent as it's satisfied.

So is his company's.

No, if you want to encourage greater value and activity in an economy what you need to is ensure that a million of the poorest in economy get 10 more dollars to spend every month. Because they will spend that money. On food, in greater and higher quality amounts. On clothing, in greater and higher quality amounts. On health care, on child care, on schools, on anything and everything they need. Because they absolutely have a greater demand for basically everything than their finances can supply. And there's no need to just give them that money. If you can force it through their wages rather than a subsidy or social security they'll happily take it.

Oh, and how about ensuring Net Neutrality once and for all?  That way businesses don't need to worry about having their networks strangled by overbearing ISP's.  Yet another reason for businesses, particularly IT businesses, to do their business in America.

Businesses don't matter. Not directly, in the net neutrality debate.

What you need is a public that's free to move electronically to whatever provider and service they demand and the ability to interact with everyone that provides services or goods in their location. Because so long as that's true and ISPs can't curate that content the ISPs can't sell their customers to the highest bidder.

A slightly different approach to the same discussion.

Reform privacy laws - no more random tracking.  Surveillance should require a court order, and certainly not from some kangaroo court that is not accountable to anyone.  And also, if the Federal Government can't spy on its citizens, then neither should corporations.  A knock-on effect of this is that it will lower people's anxiety levels and serve the mental health aspect for the better.

Actually, to an extent spying on your own citizens is required for proper government. To an extent.

Which should be entirely accountable and strictly regulated and controlled so it happens only when required.

Another item for mental health: mandatory maternity/paternity leave for everyone, subsidized by the government to take the edge off.  This will reduce stress and anxiety as well as a lot of cases of postpartum depression.

Several months of optional paid maternity leave, at least some of which prior to the expected delivery date, and optional at the decision of the employee and not the employer by any measure would be enough, generally speaking. More is nice, of course, but not required.

All of this instead of blanket-banning firearms, which will only enrage a lot of people out there as they'll  feel they're being punished for the actions of a few.

Treat the disease.  Not the symptoms.  If you treat only the symptoms, chances are you'll have a dead patient on your hands before long.

A valid question is if, to extent the metaphor, the USA is in the ICU, on the ER table, or doomed to die regardless, given the many, many issues it is facing, and symptom treatment is the only thing left.

Something that I don't expect anyone here to have an answer for:
How can the second quote be implemented without including the first quote as something the second needs to treat?

By accepting we the people, and that the US is governed by majority rule. That is to say, if the majority says you are too mentally unstable to own a gun you have no right to own a gun.

Armed violence certainly seems to me to be a sign of mental illness. EDIT: In private or law-enforcement hands, that is. Military use of force is a different matter.

An argument can be made that military personnel is functionally insane and that part of becoming a soldier is being taught to be functionally insane. Note insane does not mean illogical; the insane act in general in accordance with their understanding of the world and its logic.