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

[Black Aeronaut]

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.

No need ever since the Napoleonic Wars?  We were still expanding westward at that time, and leaving aside what we did to the Native American peoples, that was some hairy shit.  At that time it was considered an absolute necessity to have a several guns - mostly pistols, a couple of rifles, and a shotgun for when shit got real up close.

You've heard the expression, "God created man and Sam Colt made man equal"?  That's pretty much it in a nutshell.  And it didn't help matters any that in places where you didn't really need a gun for protection (say, New York City) you had people selling penny dreadfuls telling about outrageous tall tales of gunmen, lawmen, and 'indians' in the 'Wild and Untamed' West.

So, that's where our fetish comes from.  From the aggressive marketing schemes of people like Sam Colt combined with a very real need for personal protection, and the romanticisation of that culture back in the Eastern USA.  (Later on, the Prohibition would do us absolutely no favors on ANY front.)

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.

Ooookayyyy, what does rapid communication have to do with this?

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.

You keep missing the point I am trying to make here.

This is a democratically elected government.  And every government under it, from the State down to the smallest school district, derives their power from We, The People.

Yes, the States are responsible for organizing a militia.  But the idea was that the people of that militia would be supplying their own firearms.  And why not?  If you have your own gun and know how to use it effectively, then why train with a weapon you're not familiar with?

And on top of that, people here in the USA are permitted to form their own militias without any backing from the state.  They merely have to be registered as a militia within that state, and they're good to go.

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.

....

............

...................

Uhm.

Wow.

Really, I...

Look.  There's something you NEED TO UNDERSTAND HERE.  The vast majority of gun owners here in America?  They are precisely what you want here.  They are sober-minded, responsible, and exceedingly well aware of the harm their guns can do.

You just never hear about these people because THEY DO NOT DO ANYTHING THAT IS NEWSWORTHY.

For every person that commits a crime with a fire arm or accidentally hurt themselves or another person with one, there are at least a hundred more that are perfectly good people who would never do an evil or careless thing with their weapons.  They keep their guns locked up, they keep track of their ammunition, and they practice with their weapons on a regular basis.  And you never, ever hear about them for that reason.

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.

Well, here's the thing.  By and large, the people who sell and buy guns through a private transaction?  They want to make absolutely certain that the other party is on the level with them.  Mostly because there is very real danger involved.  A good friend of mine does this, and she has her wife (not a typo) cover her with a hunting rifle from under cover some distance away.

Yes, that is something you can do here - at least in Texas.

I've actually given some thought about how to make this safer.  For any and all weapons sales not involving a shop, we can have it so that you have to apply for a temporary permit to sell and/or purchase firearms.  This would involve a digitized background check system, and provide as permit number.  Prior to meeting, the two individuals can exchange permit numbers and check online to see if the permit is good (they would only be good for a very short time - say, one week).

This tells each party that they've not only passed the background check, but also that they are highly unlikely to cause any problems.  (Such as pulling their gun on them and demanding all their goods/money.)

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.'

That second bit is more what I'd like.  Simple, direct, and cost-effective - which is exactly what we need right now.

Oh, the insurance companies will kick and scream.  There would be a lot of people put out of work.  But these would mostly be cube-farm jobs, and American culture has been reviling that sort of thing ever since Office Space came out in theaters.

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.

I seriously doubt all of that.

And besides, I strongly feel that if your business cannot afford to pay a living wage to its employees, then you really shouldn't be in business at all.  It's harsh and cold, I know.  But I would be willing to make certain concessions, such as a lower minimum wage for youths (which is like 50% of McDonalds employees), and maybe even a way for small businesses to opt out, but only on a strict case-by-case basis.

Besides, people are so quick to forget that the money paid out would quickly come back into the economy.  Even better yet, you'd have a lot fewer people on welfare, which is money that the State and Federal governments can put to use elsewhere.

Here's some stuff that supports what I'm saying:

http://prospect.org/article/how-walmart-...ay-15-hour


http://www.demos.org/publication/despite...'t-livable

My personal favorite here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAcaeLmybCY

And here's one that argues against for the reasons you cite...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIBlNLyvZKU

However, once again they don't even bring up the fact that these people would start buying goods and services immediately with their money.

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.

That's pretty much what I'd be after - I don't want to kill capitalism at all.  I just want it regulated so they can't abuse the system as easily, and when they do....  -BAM-.  Make them actually hurt.

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.

Not that kind of trickle-down economics.  What Trump is doing right now is that he's giving money directly to the Upper Class.  What I want to do is lessen the taxation of the business itself - the money that gets taken out BEFORE they pay out the dividends to the investors.

This will increase the profit margins of the business so they are more likely to expand.

However, I would put the hammer down on things like bonuses, exceptionally large salaries, and capitol gains - close up all the loop holes so they can't just pat themselves on the back for getting free money from the government.  You want to make money, THEN HONESTLY MAKE IT, DAMMIT.

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.

That's pretty much what I mean.  This whole thing with killing net neutrality will permit ISPs to dictate what businesses get their customers as consumers.  As well as force businesses to pay a premium to make sure their website has enough bandwidth to support their business effectively.  I mean, honestly?  The only business that's going to benefit from the loss of net neutrality is going to be the ISPs themselves.

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.

Again, that's exactly what I mean.  Any sort of monitoring at all would require a court order, just like wire tapping phones before the September 11th attacks.  You had to provide legitimate probable cause to a judge, and that judge would decide if it was a good enough reason for that privacy to be violated.  I want to get us back to that.

Besides, the surveillance they do now?  Not a single conviction out of all that.  There was one that it might have helped with, but there was already sufficient evidence before going through the metadata recordings was even thought of.

It is pointless and nothing more than a money sink that makes us look more like a police state.

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.

Very much agreed.

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.

I prefer to think that the USA has a very nasty and malignant form of cancer.  It is going to require all forms of treatment, but if that treatment is provided then the prognosis is hopeful.  Otherwise...  I worry it will soon metastasize and our government will turn into a zombie being puppeted by the 0.1% wealthiest people.

And you know what we do with zombies.

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.

Okay, touching on this again...

I would have it so a mentally unstable person would not be able to purchase firearms, but the sticky part is when they already own firearms.  In which case I would have them stored - either in safe deposit boxes or secure commercial storage (whichever is more viable due to the size of the collection) in said owners name, paid for by the government, and sealed by a court order that may only be broken by another court order based on the word of the doctor treating the owner.

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.

This.  And the fact that I have already stated that many gun owners here in the USA... they may come off as being a bit crazy for enjoying shooting as a hobby, but I assure you that harming another person is something they would be loath to do.

I have a friend who was being raped once.  She was attacked as she was exiting her car.  She broke the window with her head, pulled her gun out, and shot the man, killing him.  And she will attest that pulling the trigger is the easy part.  It's dealing with everything else afterwards that's hard.

And I assure you, she is not the type that would have shot this person for any other reason.  Her life was in danger, and she took appropriate action.  And the same would apply to most of the rest of the gun owners here in America.