GUNS! That's what's happenin'!

[dasmokeryaget]

By "ongoing wild-west bloodbaths" I do not mean "lunatic-perpetrated mass murders." What was prophesied, for example, here in Oklahoma, when we passed concealed-carry, was heretofore peaceable citizens settling arguments over parking spaces with gunfights. We were assured that the citizenry would be shooting each other up in the streets at record rates. It never happened. No concealed carry permit holder in Oklahoma has ever been implicated in such a shooting. Likewise, when we passed open carry, we were told that macho ego-driven men would be gunning each other down over giving each other dirty looks. That never happened, either. Perhaps you don't see a difference between nutcases gunning down defenseless victims--they never choose places where someone might shoot back, of course--and normal citizens resorting to gunplay because they haven't had their coffee, but it seems like there's a difference to me. Thank God for Oklahoma--and Georgia.

You can't explain these things to the English Dan

The Brits have a horror of guns, but they have grown accustomed to bombs.

That may be the most crass and funny comment I've heard in a while.

[SteveH]

By "ongoing wild-west bloodbaths" I do not mean "lunatic-perpetrated mass murders." What was prophesied, for example, here in Oklahoma, when we passed concealed-carry, was heretofore peaceable citizens settling arguments over parking spaces with gunfights. We were assured that the citizenry would be shooting each other up in the streets at record rates. It never happened. No concealed carry permit holder in Oklahoma has ever been implicated in such a shooting. Likewise, when we passed open carry, we were told that macho ego-driven men would be gunning each other down over giving each other dirty looks. That never happened, either. Perhaps you don't see a difference between nutcases gunning down defenseless victims--they never choose places where someone might shoot back, of course--and normal citizens resorting to gunplay because they haven't had their coffee, but it seems like there's a difference to me. Thank God for Oklahoma--and Georgia.

The fact remains that in the UK there have been two such incidents that I can remember in my 62-year lifetime, while in the USA you have one every few years.

So, us it thst England has fewer people overall, fewer lunatics, or fewer guns?

Fewer peoplw overall, admittedly, but whereas the population of the US is, I think, 4 or 5 times that of the UK, mass shooting incidents are rather more than 4 or 5 times as common. No doubt just as many loonies as a proportion of total population, but far fewer guns because of our strict gun-control laws, and also far fewer tragic incidents such as Columbine. Note I didn't say "therefore far fewer...", because there are no doubt other factors involved, but there must surely be some causal connection between the relative rarity of guns and the relative rarity of gun murders.

[SteveH]

By "ongoing wild-west bloodbaths" I do not mean "lunatic-perpetrated mass murders." What was prophesied, for example, here in Oklahoma, when we passed concealed-carry, was heretofore peaceable citizens settling arguments over parking spaces with gunfights. We were assured that the citizenry would be shooting each other up in the streets at record rates. It never happened. No concealed carry permit holder in Oklahoma has ever been implicated in such a shooting. Likewise, when we passed open carry, we were told that macho ego-driven men would be gunning each other down over giving each other dirty looks. That never happened, either. Perhaps you don't see a difference between nutcases gunning down defenseless victims--they never choose places where someone might shoot back, of course--and normal citizens resorting to gunplay because they haven't had their coffee, but it seems like there's a difference to me. Thank God for Oklahoma--and Georgia.

You can't explain these things to the English Dan

The Brits have a horror of guns, but they have grown accustomed to bombs.

We are happily growing unaccustomed to them again now that we have (relative) peace in Northern Ireland. Islamist nutters seem to cause far more devastation when they bomb, no doubt because they're prepared to blow themselves up, but do it far less often: no incident I can think of since the bus bombings of 2005.

[SteveH]

By "ongoing wild-west bloodbaths" I do not mean "lunatic-perpetrated mass murders." What was prophesied, for example, here in Oklahoma, when we passed concealed-carry, was heretofore peaceable citizens settling arguments over parking spaces with gunfights. We were assured that the citizenry would be shooting each other up in the streets at record rates. It never happened. No concealed carry permit holder in Oklahoma has ever been implicated in such a shooting. Likewise, when we passed open carry, we were told that macho ego-driven men would be gunning each other down over giving each other dirty looks. That never happened, either. Perhaps you don't see a difference between nutcases gunning down defenseless victims--they never choose places where someone might shoot back, of course--and normal citizens resorting to gunplay because they haven't had their coffee, but it seems like there's a difference to me. Thank God for Oklahoma--and Georgia.

The fact remains that in the UK there have been two such incidents that I can remember in my 62-year lifetime, while in the USA you have one every few years.

So, us it thst England has fewer people overall, fewer lunatics, or fewer guns?

How does the UK's knife violence stats stack up against the US knife violence stats? How do they stack up against the US gun violence stats for that matter? If I'm not mistaken (and that is definitely a possibility) one is almost twice as likely to be a victim of knife violence in the UK as opposed to a victim of gun violence in the US...

It may well be that we have more knife crime here, no doubt because it's harder to get hold of guns, but it's difficult if not impossible to kill more than one person with a knife: as soon as you've stabbed someone, you'll be wrestled to the ground by others. With a gun, you can shoot dozens of people from a safe (to you) distance.

[SteveH]

Just done a bit of online research into murder rates by country. Different sources give different precise figures, but they all roughly agree in putting the US well ahead of any part of the UK. e.g.:
USA 5.9 p.a. per 100,000 pop.
England and Wales 1.6 ditto
N. Ireland 2.4 ditto
Scotland 2.6 ditto.

I assume they tread England and Wales, N.Ireland, and Scotland separe=ately because they have separate legal systems.

It must be said that there are countries with much worse murder rates than the USA, but the US is consistently about 2-4 times as bad as the various parts of the UK, in all the different tables.

[Del]

It must be said that there are countries with much worse murder rates than the USA, but the US is consistently about 2-4 times as bad as the various parts of the UK, in all the different tables.

Our murder rates have everything to do with the poverty, gang and drug cultures in our inner cities.

It won't matter whether we pass laws to disarm every law-abiding citizen in the USA -- or if we issued a gun to every law-abiding family and force-trained them on how to use it. (Similar to how we force-purchase people to have health insurance.)

The violence is due to the lawless subculture. We cannot fix that with more laws that they won't obey.

The native Brits are a lawful and peaceful culture. You sustained that by exporting your troublemakers to America and Australia. Your own crime rates have increased when you quite having kids and started to import less peaceful cultures to do your menial labor.

[coco]

By "ongoing wild-west bloodbaths" I do not mean "lunatic-perpetrated mass murders." What was prophesied, for example, here in Oklahoma, when we passed concealed-carry, was heretofore peaceable citizens settling arguments over parking spaces with gunfights. We were assured that the citizenry would be shooting each other up in the streets at record rates. It never happened. No concealed carry permit holder in Oklahoma has ever been implicated in such a shooting. Likewise, when we passed open carry, we were told that macho ego-driven men would be gunning each other down over giving each other dirty looks. That never happened, either. Perhaps you don't see a difference between nutcases gunning down defenseless victims--they never choose places where someone might shoot back, of course--and normal citizens resorting to gunplay because they haven't had their coffee, but it seems like there's a difference to me. Thank God for Oklahoma--and Georgia.

The fact remains that in the UK there have been two such incidents that I can remember in my 62-year lifetime, while in the USA you have one every few years.

There is a tendency in latter-Modernist thought to attribute a given effect to a single cause; Westerners tend to reduce complex systems to a binary this-or-that which can be tested. To be sure, the availability of guns is a contributing factor in the Columbine-type mass murders that have plagued America in recent years. If there were no guns, people would not be able to kill other people with guns.

The reason that we have guns in America is largely due to the belief system of our Founding Fathers. They feared the tyranny of government more than they feared the misuse of arms by individuals. Those who would reduce the cause of mass-murders to one cause only are generally willing to question this presupposition of our Founding Fathers.

Yet, if Postmodern philosophy has taught us anything good at all, it is this: Systems can seldom be reduced to a simple binary; most effects come from a multitude of causes.

This is particularly true with human behavior.

Another cause (of many) that is worth considering is the role of the media in American mass murders. On our side of the pond, the media tends to flock to the most sensational topic of the day, ignoring other important events taking place at that time. We, as consumers, demand to be entertained, and the media gladly provides the candy we want.

There are few things that satisfy the sensate culture more than a good mass-murder story. When one happens, television cameras from every major and minor news network throng to the scene, capturing every expression of horror, every tear, every reaction by survivors. For a few days following the tragedy, the airwaves are inundated with the newscrafter's narrative: How no one expected it, how the murderer's motive was or was not discernible by friends and family; then a blow by blow account is given of the killings, and, to end the story, the all-important video is shown of the communities reaction. And, since every tale needs a moral, experts are interviewed to provide us with a path to true change; experts that give a scripted answer to a binary dilemma. Over the years, the script for the mass murder story has stabilized so that everyone knows his part in the drama.

And somewhere, a self-professed loser stares at the newscast. He hears once again the familiar story of his generation, and he recognizes the promise that it bears. And he says to himself, "If I do this, if I act out this story, I will be famous. I will have an escape from the nothingness that I have become."

It is good and useful to talk about and address the various causes that lead to mass murders. Yet, even if we passed laws preventing the media from glamorizing mass murder stories, and even if Americans quit enjoying these stories, and even if the multitude of other causes were somehow addressed, there is a problem that lies even deeper still, a root cause to the multitude of secondary causes.

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

In all this time nothing has changed. Our sinful natures propel us to sinful acts. It makes us love violent narratives, it makes the media provide the drug for our addiction, and it makes the glories of infamy seem preferable to a life of alleged mediocrity.

We need a real God to provide us with a real Savior. Man's solutions to problems like mass murders, however clever, may slow the bleeding, but they never heal the wound. We need someone who can change the center of our beings, change our sinful natures so that we desire what is good, promising us, "I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh" (Ezek 36:26).

Indeed, we need someone who in his death and resurrection has himself conquered all that is evil in our behalf; establishing final victory over sin, death, and Devil. We need someone who can reconcile us to God, healing the alienation that has characterized our relationship with the creator since Eden, and covering the sin that caused the alienation. We have such a Savior, and "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom 10:9).

[SteveH]

By "ongoing wild-west bloodbaths" I do not mean "lunatic-perpetrated mass murders." What was prophesied, for example, here in Oklahoma, when we passed concealed-carry, was heretofore peaceable citizens settling arguments over parking spaces with gunfights. We were assured that the citizenry would be shooting each other up in the streets at record rates. It never happened. No concealed carry permit holder in Oklahoma has ever been implicated in such a shooting. Likewise, when we passed open carry, we were told that macho ego-driven men would be gunning each other down over giving each other dirty looks. That never happened, either. Perhaps you don't see a difference between nutcases gunning down defenseless victims--they never choose places where someone might shoot back, of course--and normal citizens resorting to gunplay because they haven't had their coffee, but it seems like there's a difference to me. Thank God for Oklahoma--and Georgia.

The fact remains that in the UK there have been two such incidents that I can remember in my 62-year lifetime, while in the USA you have one every few years.

There is a tendency in latter-Modernist thought to attribute a given effect to a single cause; Westerners tend to reduce complex systems to a binary that can be tested. To be sure, the availability of guns is a contributing factor in the Columbine-type mass murders that have plagued America in recent years. If there were no guns, people would not be able to kill other people with guns.

The reason that we have guns in America is largely due to the belief system of our Founding Fathers. They feared the tyranny of government more than they feared the misuse of arms by individuals. Those who would reduce the cause of mass-murders to one cause only are generally willing to question this presupposition of our Founding Fathers.

Yet, if Postmodern philosophy has taught us anything good at all, it is this: Systems can seldom be reduced to a simple binary; most effects come from a multitude of causes.

This is particularly true with human behavior.

Another cause (of many) that is worth considering is the role of the media in American mass murders. On our side of the pond, the media tends to flock to the most sensational topic of the day, ignoring other important events taking place at that time. We, as consumers, demand to be entertained, and the media gladly provides the candy we want.

There are few things that satisfy the sensate culture more than a good mass-murder story. When one happens, television cameras from every major and minor news network throng to the scene, capturing every expression of horror, every tear, every reaction by survivors. For a few days following the tragedy, the airwaves are inundated with the newscrafter's narrative: How no one expected it, how the murderer's motive was or was not discernible by friends and family; then a blow by blow account is given of the killings, and, to end the story, the all-important video is shown of the communities reaction. And, since every tale needs a moral, experts are interviewed to provide us with a path to true change; experts that give a scripted answer to a binary dilemma. Over the years, the script for the mass murder story has stabilized so that everyone knows his part in the drama.

Quite. As I said earlier:

but far fewer guns because of our strict gun-control laws, and also far fewer tragic incidents such as Columbine. Note I didn't say " therefore far fewer...", because there are no doubt other factors involved, but there must surely be some causal connection between the relative rarity of guns and the relative rarity of gun murders.

[coco]

By "ongoing wild-west bloodbaths" I do not mean "lunatic-perpetrated mass murders." What was prophesied, for example, here in Oklahoma, when we passed concealed-carry, was heretofore peaceable citizens settling arguments over parking spaces with gunfights. We were assured that the citizenry would be shooting each other up in the streets at record rates. It never happened. No concealed carry permit holder in Oklahoma has ever been implicated in such a shooting. Likewise, when we passed open carry, we were told that macho ego-driven men would be gunning each other down over giving each other dirty looks. That never happened, either. Perhaps you don't see a difference between nutcases gunning down defenseless victims--they never choose places where someone might shoot back, of course--and normal citizens resorting to gunplay because they haven't had their coffee, but it seems like there's a difference to me. Thank God for Oklahoma--and Georgia.

The fact remains that in the UK there have been two such incidents that I can remember in my 62-year lifetime, while in the USA you have one every few years.

There is a tendency in latter-Modernist thought to attribute a given effect to a single cause; Westerners tend to reduce complex systems to a binary that can be tested. To be sure, the availability of guns is a contributing factor in the Columbine-type mass murders that have plagued America in recent years. If there were no guns, people would not be able to kill other people with guns.

The reason that we have guns in America is largely due to the belief system of our Founding Fathers. They feared the tyranny of government more than they feared the misuse of arms by individuals. Those who would reduce the cause of mass-murders to one cause only are generally willing to question this presupposition of our Founding Fathers.

Yet, if Postmodern philosophy has taught us anything good at all, it is this: Systems can seldom be reduced to a simple binary; most effects come from a multitude of causes.

This is particularly true with human behavior.

Another cause (of many) that is worth considering is the role of the media in American mass murders. On our side of the pond, the media tends to flock to the most sensational topic of the day, ignoring other important events taking place at that time. We, as consumers, demand to be entertained, and the media gladly provides the candy we want.

There are few things that satisfy the sensate culture more than a good mass-murder story. When one happens, television cameras from every major and minor news network throng to the scene, capturing every expression of horror, every tear, every reaction by survivors. For a few days following the tragedy, the airwaves are inundated with the newscrafter's narrative: How no one expected it, how the murderer's motive was or was not discernible by friends and family; then a blow by blow account is given of the killings, and, to end the story, the all-important video is shown of the communities reaction. And, since every tale needs a moral, experts are interviewed to provide us with a path to true change; experts that give a scripted answer to a binary dilemma. Over the years, the script for the mass murder story has stabilized so that everyone knows his part in the drama.

Quite. As I said earlier:

but far fewer guns because of our strict gun-control laws, and also far fewer tragic incidents such as Columbine. Note I didn't say " therefore far fewer...", because there are no doubt other factors involved, but there must surely be some causal connection between the relative rarity of guns and the relative rarity of gun murders.

To whom it may concern: If this becomes a vortex, please go back and read the part Steve cut out.

[dasmokeryaget]

Just done a bit of online research into murder rates by country. Different sources give different precise figures, but they all roughly agree in putting the US well ahead of any part of the UK. e.g.:
USA 5.9 p.a. per 100,000 pop.
England and Wales 1.6 ditto
N. Ireland 2.4 ditto
Scotland 2.6 ditto.

I assume they tread England and Wales, N.Ireland, and Scotland separe=ately because they have separate legal systems.

It must be said that there are countries with much worse murder rates than the USA, but the US is consistently about 2-4 times as bad as the various parts of the UK, in all the different tables.

YOur facts are quite accurate, however there is more to it than what it appears. The US counts all gun homicide in its stats. The UK only counts homicides with convictions in their stats.

But in all fairness, If the UK presented its stats the same as we do, our numbers would still be higher.

Still guns are not the problem. And in England violent crime (armed robbery, rape and theft etc) has risen since the all out gun ban of 94. Theres more Bobbys on the streets than ever before and now, comtrary to what they tell us, they are arming themselves.

People in the rural areas are living in fear.

[hogleg]

To whom it may concern: If this becomes a vortex, please go back and read the part Steve cut out.

Steve can simply choose not visit or move to Georgia. Similarly, I won't even fly a route that puts me through the UK.

[dasmokeryaget]

To whom it may concern: If this becomes a vortex, please go back and read the part Steve cut out.

Steve can simply choose not visit or move to Georgia. Similarly, I won't even fly a route that puts me through the UK.

Ever notice Hogleg how hard it its for people to get focused on the real issues and get the attention off the symptoms ?

[DAN]

...there are no doubt other factors involved, but there must surely be some causal connection between the relative rarity of guns and the relative rarity of gun murders.

There it is: what I was looking for, and was pretty sure you would provide. People naturally and instinctively equate more guns with more murders (I will note in passing that you shift back and forth from mass shootings to gun murders, though they are not the same thing, but that's okay--what we have here will do to go on). I don't blame you for thinking this way at all. It seems to make perfect logical sense to assume that fewer guns mean less gun violence.

The problem is that this is not the actual experience of anyone in the United States, at least. Here, it is so uniformly the case that the places with the most stringent gun control are the places with the most gun violence, and the most criminal assaults in general, that the whole subject has become something of a running joke. Just the opposite happens when the number of concealed-carry permit holders rises in a community: criminal assaults and gun violence go down, not up.

Switzerland--at least at one time in the not-too-distant past, I don't claim to know about right this minute--was absolutely awash in guns due to their unique military system and requirements, yet they were a very peaceable society with a markedly low level of gun crimes.

As you say, Steve, there are undoubtedly other factors involved. Switzerland alone demonstrates that. My redneck family, absolutely brimming over the top with guns, but without gun violence in our history (thought it must be noted that my mom probably prevented an attack on her person once by pulling her gun), demonstrates that.

You can very quickly make a case from the "soft" nature of the targets in mass shootings--that is, mass shooters never choose a firing range!--that the presence of guns prevents mass shootings.

As far as being difficult to kill more than one person with a knife, it makes me wonder if you've ever tried to defend against a knife. It is not easy. I am probably going to test for my first degree black belt this year and I sure don't find it easy.

Do you remember this recent story?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... s/7498911/

Wrestle someone with a knife to the ground? Again, how often have you done that?

Think you would do better than these gentlemen?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9igSoJHEdUo

(Note: I screwed up earlier and gave the usatoday link twice. The second link was supposed to be to a youtube clip. Fixed it.)

[yetanotherbob]

"An armed society is a polite society."

Does anyone here remember who made that statement?

[SteveH]

...there are no doubt other factors involved, but there must surely be some causal connection between the relative rarity of guns and the relative rarity of gun murders.

There it is: what I was looking for, and was pretty sure you would provide. People naturally and instinctively equate more guns with more murders (I will note in passing that you shift back and forth from mass shootings to gun murders, though they are not the same thing, but that's okay--what we have here will do to go on). I don't blame you for thinking this way at all. It seems to make perfect logical sense to assume that fewer guns mean less gun violence.

The problem is that this is not the actual experience of anyone in the United States, at least. Here, it is so uniformly the case that the places with the most stringent gun control are the places with the most gun violence, and the most criminal assaults in general, that the whole subject has become something of a running joke. Just the opposite happens when the number of concealed-carry permit holders rises in a community: criminal assaults and gun violence go down, not up.

Switzerland--at least at one time in the not-too-distant past, I don't claim to know about right this minute--was absolutely awash in guns due to their unique military system and requirements, yet they were a very peaceable society with a markedly low level of gun crimes.

As you say, Steve, there are undoubtedly other factors involved. Switzerland alone demonstrates that. My redneck family, absolutely brimming over the top with guns, but without gun violence in our history (thought it must be noted that my mom probably prevented an attack on her person once by pulling her gun), demonstrates that.

You can very quickly make a case from the "soft" nature of the targets in mass shootings--that is, mass shooters never choose a firing range!--that the presence of guns prevents mass shootings.

As far as being difficult to kill more than one person with a knife, it makes me wonder if you've ever tried to defend against a knife. It is not easy. I am probably going to test for my first degree black belt this year and I sure don't find it easy.

Do you remember this recent story?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... s/7498911/

Wrestle someone with a knife to the ground? Again, how often have you done that?

Think you would do better than these gentlemen?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9igSoJHEdUo

(Note: I screwed up earlier and gave the usatoday link twice. The second link was supposed to be to a youtube clip. Fixed it.)

Hmmm... ok, there may be something in what you say. However, insisting on a background check before a gun can be sold couldn't do any harm, surely? At any rate, allowing guns in schools and churches is absolutely insane: "we should be on our knees", as someone on here said in another context recently. Question: will individual churches or schools or bars be allowed to continue to ban guns from their premises, or will they be obligd to allow them?
My suggestion that a knife-wielder could be wrestled to the ground might not always be possible, but it is certainly true that you can't go on a mass-killing spree with a knife the way you can with a gun. I have, incidentally, calmed down and disarmed someone waving a kitchen knife around and threatening people, though I think it was all bluster - he had no intention of actually stabbing anyone.
The youtube video is a one-to-one situation. Usually, there'd be other people around, and he could be grabbed from behind, since he can't face all ways at once. There have been a few knife tragedies in the town I live in, usually at pub-chucking-out time, but never more than one murder at a time, presumably either because the knife-wielder high-tails it out of the crime scene, or because other people overpower them.

[SteveH]

"An armed society is a polite society."

Does anyone here remember who made that statement?

No, but a Roman called Vegetius said "If you want peace, prepare for war". That was dangerous nonsense, too.

[Kerdy]

"An armed society is a polite society."

Does anyone here remember who made that statement?

No, but a Roman called Vegetius said "If you want peace, prepare for war". That was dangerous nonsense, too.

...Said Europe just before Nazi Germany began to invade everyone.

[hogleg]

"An armed society is a polite society."

Does anyone here remember who made that statement?

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." ---- A fiction writer made that statement.

[hogleg]

However, insisting on a background check before a gun can be sold couldn't do any harm, surely?

Sure it can.

Firstly, the federal government has absolutely no business regulating or being involved in intrastate sales/transfers of private property (even firearms) between private citizens.

Secondly, if a sale or transfer of a firearm is interstate or between a Federal Firearm Licensee and a private citizen (interstate or intrastate) regardless of venue, as it stands by law today, a background check must occur. Also if the sale is between to private citizens of different states, regardless of venue, the sale must go though an FFL which, by law, requires a background check.

Thirdly, many states require background checks for intrastate sales/transfers of private property between private citizens. That's where the decisions and any legislation regarding intrastate transfers it belong --- in the state legislatures, not the Congress.

The mantra you hear from the media about a "gun show loop hole" and internet sales are lies and distortions of truth. The rules above still apply, regardless of venue.

[DAN]

Hmmm... ok, there may be something in what you say.

That's fantastic. Seriously. We've gone from "madness" to "there may be something in what you say." That may be the most progress in changing a viewpoint I've seen on the internet in ages and reflects real open-mindedness on your part. Really. I am not just being a wise guy.

However, insisting on a background check before a gun can be sold couldn't do any harm, surely?

Probably not if it were left in reasonable people's hands. So often things that seem like common-sense fixes to problems turn out otherwise when actually implemented. In this case, there are certain decisions to be made: what disqualifies a person from owning a gun? I could elaborate, but the bottom line is that is the people who win elections who end up making that decision. You may not have seen a county-by-county map of the last two presidential elections. I need not link to one. If you are interested, you can easily google them. The upshot is that Republicans win about 77 percent of the counties and lose the election because the population density in the "blue" areas is so high. You can imagine how we in reddest-of-the-red-states Oklahoma feel about our political enemies deciding which of us should be allowed to own guns.

Then you have to decide how to allow the results of those background checks to infringe on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms. I am not trying to advocate for the right of lunatics to carry weapons, Steve, but it is a sticky problem. The wording of the Second Amendment is actually crystal clear, as anyone having read Madison's explanation of the nature of a well-regulated militia in THE FEDERALIST, or the voluminous literature of the period, will know, despite the pitiful attempts of some in our political minefield to pretend otherwise. Inherent in the concept of background checks is the idea that some people will not be able to bear arms. Trying to do this without actually violating the Constitution is no easy problem to solve and more than a few think it is not actually capable of effective resolution and that the attempt to do so creates problems worse than it solves.

And it should be remembered that it doesn't always help. In Newton, for instance, my understanding is that the guns' owner HAD passed all the required checks. But the shooter wasn't the owner! He had stolen the guns and the checks didn't help the situation at all.

At any rate, allowing guns in schools and churches is absolutely insane...

Steve, I think you are given to a bit of hyperbole. There have been times in our history when it was not at all unknown to carry firearms to church. And even now, you will realize that the instant retort is "You prefer that schools and churches should be defenseless?"

I often think that to a lunatic, a potential mass shooter, seeing a "gun-free zone" sign on the door effectively announces, "Defenseless victims here! High body count assured!"

You may possibly find this one amusing. Seriously. It's funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYL0yN110go

will individual churches or schools or bars be allowed to continue to ban guns from their premises...

As long as there are property rights, yes, you can say what is allowed on your premises. Individuals, of course, can make their own decisions on what establishments they choose to patronize.

...it is certainly true that you can't go on a mass-killing spree with a knife the way you can with a gun.

Steve, I have to admit that the statement just floors me. Take a minute and google "mass stabbings china." Here is one result:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26402367

I have, incidentally, calmed down and disarmed someone waving a kitchen knife around and threatening people, though I think it was all bluster - he had no intention of actually stabbing anyone.

It nevertheless shows considerable fortitude on your part!

The youtube video is a one-to-one situation. Usually, there'd be other people around, and he could be grabbed from behind, since he can't face all ways at once. There have been a few knife tragedies in the town I live in, usually at pub-chucking-out time, but never more than one murder at a time, presumably either because the knife-wielder high-tails it out of the crime scene, or because other people overpower them.

To be sure, I'd feel a lot more comfortable trying to deal with a knife-wielding maniac if I had half a dozen stout fellows working with me. Granted. But it is by no means easy. The point of the video, as I'm sure you realized, is to make people aware that simplistic solutions--in the case of the video, "I'd just pull my gun"--to the problem of someone with a knife may not always come off as well as we would like. Some people would do as you suggest. Some people will panic. Sometimes, before people are half-aware of what's going on, multiple people are dead or dying.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1283187/suspe ... ppearance/

The fundamental point here, that restricting access to guns by no means eliminates mass murder, is probably clear. Yes, it is easier to kill large numbers of people with a gun, but nothing short of the Second Coming is going to completely solve the problem.

You seem like a reasonable man, Steve, your propensity toward hyperbolic assessments aside, and I frankly have gotten far more of a concession out of you than I expected or ever encounter in cyberspace. I am immensely pleased and have enjoyed the conversation, but I think I'm going to drop this now and get ready for work.