That first article, "Everyone Should Get A Gun!" -- haven't we already seen how ineffective gun bans are, in Britain? They've got more gun violence now, than before the ban...

They've got more gun violence now, than before the ban...

Everyone has more now-- including us. The question is, how much more gun violence would they have had without a ban. (For a possible answer, see our own statistics.)

Regarding the "Negative Capability" article: I don't think those words mean what he thinks they mean, ie: talking mean. I've been interested in the concept of Negative Capability for a while, but what it actually refers to is a state of intentional openmindedness; the ability to accept that not everything can be resolved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_Capability

I realize he only uses this term in the headline, but with its distinguished poetical history, that's confusing.

Gun control really doesn’t work. Limiting freedom always produces consequences. Iraq, for example, has strict weaponry controls but this hasn’t stopped the Shiites and Sunnis from killing each other along with American soldiers.

Nor do I support the NRA and their crazy ideas. I think that people who own guns should have to obtain a license on the proper way to use a gun, how to use it for defense, and how to store it safely, etc. This, in my view, would most likely reduce the violence that manifests in the U.S.

BTW, I think Colbert's segment on the "metaphor-off" aptly summarized what guns represent: a penis.

Ban Guns from people who follow the law. Great, what next, ban cars to keep drunks from killing people on the roads? Ban fast Food so people can eat bad food? Great thinking there!

The polarization of the issues and the tendency to overreact by implementing excessive policies mainly for PR reasons seems to be the general theme of American politics. Any meaningful gun regulation short of an unrealistic ban will ultimately fail to prevent such fairly rare, but brutal events. Same is true of the ridiculous assumption that it is the lack of more guns that is in part responsible for these massacres. One of the sources of the problem are the simple laws of economics which allow manufacturers to reap huge profits. A change in cultural mentality where gun ownership and/or carrying is no longer glorified. Mutually Assured Destruction is simply not a good deterrent when the "rogue actors" have the nukes.

The polarization of the issues and the tendency to overreact by implementing excessive policies mainly for PR reasons seems to be the general theme of American politics. Any meaningful gun regulation short of an unrealistic ban will ultimately fail to prevent such fairly rare, but brutal events. Same is true of the ridiculous assumption that it is the lack of more guns that is in part responsible for these massacres. One of the sources of the problem are the simple laws of economics which allow manufacturers to reap huge profits. A change in cultural mentality where gun ownership and/or carrying is no longer glorified is necessary before any meaningful improvement in gun-crime control is made. Mutually Assured Destruction is simply not a good deterrent when the "rogue actors" have the nukes.

Ban Guns from people who follow the law.

The weird thing is? This works in other countries, and I really think we need a better model than the dysfunctional one we've got now. How about taking some clues from folks with better results-- unless fewer deaths is not really your aim. I loved Elayne Boosler's piece on HuffPost:

We Are Getting Tired of Prying Your Guns out of Your Cold Dead Hand

http://snipurl.com/Boosler

Well, the question then becomes are the results better in other countries simply because of the more efficient gun regulation or is the gun regulation effective as the result of a fundamental cultural change? Maybe there's a causative effect, or merely a correlation. For most part , a majority of guns made w/in the last 40 years are still in circulation and are just as effective at killing as some of the newer models. Whether legally, illegally, or through a private sale, people can obtain a gun. THose obtained illegally are more likely to be used to perpetrate a crime and fall outside gun regulation scheme.

Here's a random idea:

What if community newspapers published a list of people who had recently purchased a gun? I suppose a waiting period would have to be instated, but I think some states already have that anyways.

The question is, would there be enough concered/paranoid citizens checking the list to see if people they know to be mentally unstable are on the list?

Doubtful, I suppose, but I think it's an interesting idea at least.

I don't think an epic battle between Gun Nuts and the Legislatosaurus would be productive.

I also think Eric's first post above has the right idea.

Sarah Chayes: Days of Lies and Roses is a bloody interesting read. It reads like fiction, only sadly it is real life. Thanks for linking it.

Gun violence is a SYMPTOM -- it is not the decease. The decease is predominantly one of POVERTY. Compare the US to countries with considerable higher living standards, and you don't have the same level of gun violence -- or violence in general. And these are countries where the civilian population can bring home military weapons after serving their national duty. Assault rifles with high capacity magazines, barrel shrouds, flame suppressor and pistol grip -- all things that have been banned in one form or another in California.

The issue is a complete red herring, and fawning politicians score brownie points by passing meaningless bans that have no effect anyhow. Hell, I saw a clip recently of a New York politician admitting that she had no idea what a barrel shroud is, but she was still trying to pass a bill that would ban it -- now that's just dumb.

Freud once said that a fear of firearms is a sign of social and sexual retardation -- I think that's much closer to the point, than a gun being some kind of penis substitution.

Dzwonka, I agree that poverty is a big problem (one rarely addressed by our millionaire politicians) in terms of violence in general, but what about incidents like the Va Tech massacre?

These incidents have little to do with poverty, and much to do with a mentally unstable person buying a gun over the counter and then directly proceeding to shoot dozens of people with it.

So, the real question here: Is there any way of making it harder for crazies to kill people without restricting that oh-so-American freedom to defend oneself, one's property, and one's freedom with firearms?

Frenetic, I completely agree that Va Tech and Columbine weren't not poverty-related, but poverty-related gun deaths completely outnumber these hyped-up cases that the media use to sell their product. Not to speak of non-gun, poverty-related deaths and other violent crimes. More people die from bees, and changing a flat tire on the highway, than from shark attacks -- but what gets the most coverage?

So, the real question here: Is there any way of making it harder for crazies to kill people without restricting that oh-so-American freedom to defend oneself, one's property, and one's freedom with firearms?

I'll say it again -- they banned guns in England, and gun crime increased. (And BTW, Susan's response about imagine "..how much more gun violence would they have had without a ban..." is a total garbage argument with absolutely no basis in facts and figures -- they banned guns and gun crime went up. Doesn't get any clearer than that).

I saw some of those kids' myspace profiles, and it honestly made me cry... Some 18 year old girl with a bunch of banal, vapid and mostly shallow interests and comments -- but certainly no more than me, at that age. She could have grown as a person, led an interesting life and have become a profound character -- if this fucking scumbag, self-pitying, narcissist defective piece of shit hadn't murdered her and 31 other kids that were all vastly superior human beings to him. It's fucking horrible, and enough to drive any person up the wall.

But guess what -- that's life. It's unfair. And mostly random.

Also, I think more people are killed by drunk drivers every day, than that school shooting (I'm not sure on that one -- it's a guess I'm willing to make).

As a soon-to-be gun owner, I think Frenetic has a wonderful idea. I would very much like for my name, and model of weapon, to be printed in the public record for all to see.

There are only two reasons I would ever remove my weapon from the safe:

1. To practice using it properly.

2. To kill anyone in my home without invitation or warrant.

I do not think guns are "cool", nor do I think they are fun. Truth be told, I would rather play "Duck Hunt" than practice at the shooting range. However, there are times when bad things happen, and there are times when the good guys cannot help us fast enough. As a last-resort, sometimes violence is necessary to self preservation.

Ideally, anyone considering entering my home to commit violence against me will read my name in the paper, and decide against it. In fact, I would happily display a "pro-gun" sticker in my window for the same reason.

Furthermore, I think that the owner of a weapon should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law whenever it is dischared irresponsibly. Nothing hurts my pro-gun position more than some moron who leaves a weapon lying around for a kid to find- and use.

they banned guns and gun crime went up. Doesn't get any clearer than that).

Sure it does. Correlation does not equal causation. But since you believe it does, I have another suggestion: How about only women get to have guns?

94% of all school shootings in the last 30 years have been carried out by males:

http://www.shakesville.com/2007/04/anamericantradition.php

...and 93-95% (depending on the period covered) of all workplace shootings have been carried out by males:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11118426/

What do you think would be the conclusion if those numbers were reversed, and it was overwhelmingly females who (literally) went ballistic? I'll bet there would be some pretty severe restrictions on women getting their hands on guns.

dzwonka said I think that's much closer to the point, than a gun being some kind of penis substitution.

Susan said I'll bet there would be some pretty severe restrictions on women getting their hands on guns

I'm waiting for the obvious correlation leading to the oh-so-obvious punchline here.

Either that, or some "fuck you, you fucking feminist" retort.

:) lol

The guy that wrote that SF Gate article is living in a dream world. "...It would not be instantaneous. It would not be easy. But slowly, as manufacturing largely ceased..."

He must have no concept of the reality of business. Lame.

It seems most commenters here understand that limiting freedom is bad. This issue is tired. You know what I think should be more widespread? Not gun control-- how about mental health awareness? How about some compassion for our neighbors? How about strong community building? Enough of the hyper-individualistic American way. That is what allowed a freak like Cho to slip through the cracks. Daily, no one gives a damn about the people around them-- but when shit like this happens, they want to blame it on the weapon. Stupid. We should blame ourselves and our culture.

how about mental health awareness?

I think you're on the right track, Jamey, but it's not a simple issue. I'd also move away from focusing on "blame" and looking more at "responsibility".

Cho (the Va Tech killer) was referred to a school counselor, and his violent writings were mentioned to police. Cho did not take up the recommendation for counseling, and the police couldn't exert their power over someone who hadn't made any direct threats or committed any violence (yet).

Anti-social behavior, in itself, is not a crime in the USA. As it should be, I think.

But what about before Cho was at this school? I remember reading a blurb somewhere about how Cho's parents were disturbed by his behavior as a child. Did they not take him to see a mental health professional? Testing a minor for mental health problems should also be encouraged by teachers and doctors when it seems something is not right. Perhaps what made Cho such a monster could simply have been addressed by medication.

Hell, idiot parents will pump their kids full of Ritalin at the drop of a hat (a problem in itself, on the other side of this coin). Why wasn't young Cho's sullen, antisocial, seething behavior taken seriously when he was a minor?

However, the parents and doctors aren't the only ones responsible, and maybe they tried really hard to address what was wrong with their son (or maybe they abused or neglected him, who knows). The bottom line, when we want to find someone to hold responsible for this sort of thing, ultimately the first person we should look at is ourselves.

U.S. Congress may act to keep guns from mentally ill

By Thomas Ferraro Sun Apr 22, 4:09 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Prompted by the Virginia Tech massacre, a U.S. Congress reluctant to tackle gun control may pass limited legislation to help keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill, lawmakers and aides said on Sunday.

"Given the horror that happened at Virginia Tech, I think there's a real chance of passing this," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), a New York Democrat, told "Fox News Sunday."

A Republican leadership aide agreed, telling Reuters, "If there is a consensus, and it is in lieu of knee-jerk draconian measures, (the chances are) probably really good."

Congress was initially hesitant to respond to the shooting rampage at Virginia Tech on Monday with any vow to toughen gun-control, a politically divisive issue.

In fact, Democrats, who had earlier championed such measures, including a since expired 1994 ban on assault weapons, effectively abandoned the issue when they won control of Congress last year.

Yet after it was determined that the Virginia Tech killer had been admitted earlier to a psychiatric hospital and deemed "a danger to himself and others," lawmakers dusted off previously rejected legislation.

[...]

(Source)

The bottom line, when we want to find someone to hold responsible for this sort of thing, ultimately the first person we should look at is ourselves.

It sounds like we agree. I see taking "responsibility" as accepting the "blame" ...same difference... just semantics. Regardless of how well we think we can intervene in troubled people's lives, the important thing is to get away from the knee-jerk gun control response, and focus on the deeper issue here which comes down to human relations and community support.

This school shooting victim also seems to agree with taking responsibility and taking better care of each other. Top featured video on YouTube right now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmSpj9z4S0Q

Saying gun control doesn't work is kind of like saying "copyright doesn't work" or "network security doesn't work" simply because violations of copyright and breaches of security actually occur despite attempts to stop them. Gun control would not eliminate violence in the U.S., or even gun violence. But not every criminal is a gang member or a professional criminal who has access to black market weapons and is willing to buy them from there. It's criminology 101--a huge proportion of crime is spur of the moment anger, mental illness or stupidity. If spree killers could get rocket-propelled grenades and AK-47s easily, don't you think that they would? Or do you think that Seung Hui Cho had some moral taboo against using anything heavier than a Glock?

Well said Dende