You don't give guns to criminals, and North Korea has a criminal record.

Yes, the same principle of deterrence applies here both to personal firearm possession and national nuclear weapon possession. North Korea's regime leaders are correct to seek nuclear weapons and probably correct to assume that possession of them will help them secure and preserve their current status as the ruling regime in North Korea against hostile overthrow.

The United States doesn't want North Korea to have nuclear weapons for the same reason that average Americans generally accept limits on the firearm possession rights of felons and the mentally disturbed. Credible threats to use those weapons offensively are a different matter from deterrence.

I don't think conflating the issues of North Korea and domestic gun control laws makes the discussion of either any easier or clearer.

you can cut this however you want, it still wont stop the guns from getting to the people who care to use them in the wrong way...period. How you going to round up close to 400 million guns, and hope that people dont start shooting at the police as they go to collect them?

It can percieved as the same but it isn’t. Only the P5 should have nukes if we are to live in a nuclear world.

If the analogy holds true and every American acts like their own country militarily, if every country have nukes every American should have a tank in her sense. When she grows up she will understand that the world is a scary unfair cold place.

Guns are stupid, and so are Nukes. America is in the grips of an apocalyptic death cult. When you are dead you are dead. Why would anyone ever want to have or use something that can erase the personal universe of another being with just a momentary decision? Causing death should be a painful, traumatic, difficult and tedious process.
and don't give me this crap about hunters. most hunters I know have way more guns than they need for the 2 or 3 days a year they go squat in the woods.

So, Ishirkmywork, the conclusion that is inescapable, is that in the USA, "recreational shooting" includes shooting and killing people. Based on the sorts of guns that are insisted upon as being required for "recreational shooting" such as semi automatic weapons, military assault rifles, pump action shotguns, etc, a whole range of handguns, then the inescapable conclusion is that in the USA, shooting people is a form of "recreational shooting".

If it wasn't, they wouldn't need those sorts of guns. Who needs an AR15 with a legal "bump stock" fitted to shoot squirrels or deer ?

@MajorMitchell
i think guns in the USA are just a form of pornography -- a self image booster, a way to have fantasies about heroic situations that are never actually going to happen. All of our tv shows and movies are about some perfect hero with a gun as a problem solver. the reality is all of these fantasies are more likely to result in a self inflicted gunshot or accidental death.

i've personally witnessed 4 gun murders, one gun attempted murder, and have shot a skunk with rabies. so heroic!

Americans own half of all guns in the world
Of Americans, 75% do not own guns

This is a problem limited to a relatively small number of people.

But it is very similar. When you have weapons that are inherently dangerous, having lots of them around increases everybody's risk. I suppose the fortunate thing is that by far the most likely people to be killed by guns are gun owners, so that risk isn't perfectly spread across society.

The big difference is that thousands of gun deaths each year are viewed as acceptable but losing whole cities is not. (It's utterly buzarre that Americans flip their shit over 40 deaths a year from terrorism, but shrug at 30,000)


And no if access to guns is limited gun deaths go down. Way down. Of course, the US has dig itself a giant hole, so it's take time. Sure, if you confiscated them by police visit, some whackadoos will should at cops and end up strapped to a gurney or just dead, but once the sale is stopped, by backs can go a long way toward reducing the problem.

Remember, gun deaths and injuries cause upwards of $250 billion in losses to the US economy each year, so we could spend rather a lot to bring this problem under control and come out ahead.

Of course, we won't because gun deaths are perfectly acceptable

"i think guns in the USA are just a form of pornography -- a self image booster, a way to have fantasies about heroic situations that are never actually going to happen."

I'm sorry to have to say this, but your view here is completely ignorant. I will grant you that out there in the US, there's probably at least one person who has idle dreams of being a vigilante hero with their concealed carry permit, maybe even multiple people. The overwhelming number of gun owners in America own them out of a sincere desire to protect themselves, their families, or their businesses, not to look like a badass to themselves or their buddies. Quite frankly, I don't believe you can sincerely hold this opinion after spending any amount of time making a genuine effort to understand the motivation of gun owners, and if you haven't made that effort, you have no intellectual standing to wax poetic about their addiction to this "form of pornography."

"So, Ishirkmywork, the conclusion that is inescapable, is that in the USA, "recreational shooting" includes shooting and killing people. Based on the sorts of guns that are insisted upon as being required for "recreational shooting" such as semi automatic weapons, military assault rifles, pump action shotguns, etc, a whole range of handguns, then the inescapable conclusion is that in the USA, shooting people is a form of "recreational shooting"."

MajorMitchell, have you ever shot a gun? I've shot semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns at targets on a range before. The shit is just plain *fun* and has nothing to do with ever hoping to turn it on a person. I don't own any of those weapons, just had a buddy who let me use them. I never had any intention of pointing those guns at another person. Trying to hit a target is fun. The process of improving your aim and getting better at your craft is a process of self-improvement that appeals to the most fundamental desire of any man, to be the best form of himself in any activity he pursues. It's the same sense of accomplishment you can get from hitting a new bench press max or lower mile-run time, or even getting your first solo win in Diplomacy or coming back from being down to 1 center to participating in the draw: you set out to achieve a goal, and you hit it.


Look, I understand that y'all oppose widespread gun ownership. I don't think I'm ever going to agree with the reasons for that opposition, but there are intellectually respectable reasons for opposing them and I don't think less of any of y'all for holding that position. But these reasons being given are straight bullshit, no other way around it. If you've never shot a gun in your life and never had any desire to do so, and you haven't spent any time trying to understand the motives and reasons of the overwhelming majority of responsible gun owners, it is irresponsible to make psychological projections about their mental state or to reject their stated motives in an attempt to dig at the "real" reasons which have no basis in reality.

I have to agree with President Eden that shooting is a highly enjoyable activity. It's worth noting, however, that it is possible to enjoy shooting in a country with relatively strict gun laws such as the UK.

I've fired the British Army general purpose machine gun and SA80 A2 assault rifle whilst at uni in the officer training corps, which is open to pretty much any student who isn't a republican. I've fired .22 rifles at numerous gun clubs and fair grounds. I've fired a 7.62 Russian hunting rifle, numerous shotguns, and a sweet little .44 magmum carbine at a friend's farm. All this is very much doable despite there being a high degree of firearms regulations in place.

I'm not sure "enjoyable" really is adequate justification for legality. Lots of enjoyable things are illegal because of their harmful effects on society.

interesting fact, president eden..... i am a gun owner. and i am surrounded by gun obsessed wingnuts who i interact with on a daily basis. i do not think i am speaking from ignorance.

obviously most gun owners aren't obsessive and addicted to weapons.....but the vast majority of guns are owned by people of have weird thoughts, fantasies, and paranoid instincts about them.

Doesn’t gun violence increase in cities that impose the most restrictive gun regulation?

no

@eturnage. Yes.

The problem is that over 95% of gun crimes are committed with illegally owned/obtained guns.

So the most restrictive laws don't really mean anything to the people who are already breaking the laws.

as usual, citing actual statistics is helpful. references please.

well as for inflated gun death numbers, 60% are suicide.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html

washpo had a study from pittsburg that showed only 18% of crimes with guns were legally owned

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.316d92b51940

meanwhile... more guns does not have a direct correlation with more murder

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/cnsnewscom-staff/more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013

politifact has even fact checked variations of this, and it is consistently low

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/05/joe-scarborough/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-tiny-fraction-crimes-commit/


just a few stats there

and i agree that bump stocks should be illegal. anything that outfits a semi-automatic into a fully automatic gun, should be illegal (even pistols and some glock models)

one of my favorite articles on this is from WashPo

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.b1b5c32ebfc3#comments

This thread is missing the point of the 2nd amendment.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Our constitution gave us the right to bear arms to protect ourselves. Recreation and hunting are useful for training and proper knowledge of firearms, but to be able to protect ourselves is the purpose of the amendment.

I'm not about to research it, but I believe that governments, through civil war, genocide, police action, and war, have caused more firearm deaths than private ownership of guns.

@"It can percieved as the same but it isn’t. Only the P5 should have nukes if we are to live in a nuclear world. "

The P5 being the winner s of World War 2. China (now PRC, not ROC), Russia (no longer the Soviet Union) the US, UK, and France (technically the 5th republic, cause technically france stopped existing during World War 2, and then set up a 4th republic... but who's counting).

The only reason they 'should' have weapons is that in 1945 they were the worlds most powerful remaining nations... Now Germany and Japan have both rebuilt and recovered (germany is the 5th largest arms exporter in the world, after the big 5, ahead of the UK - depending on how you count).

The only thing you want in a nuclear world is a guarentee of stability. If only the P5 have nukes, and it is 1955, then the most powerful nations in the world, have a huge amount to lose out on if they got to war with each other, which may be a recipe for stability...

jump ahead 60 years to 2015, and this is no necessarily still the case; maybe Germany has formed an economic and political union with other European nations, maybe China has caught up economically with the industrialised west and is looking to expand, maybe Russia is in a downward spiral dependent on oil exports while oil is sliding down in price being replaced by newer technologies...

You don't necessarily still have a recipe for stability when most of the factors which went into it have changed.

2nd amendment, it is there, it have been ruled on over and over, and it isnt going to change. Some additional screening, without the 'slippery slope effect' may be in order, but lets be honest. You can wring your hands and scream all you want, but it isnt going to repeal the 2nd.

As far as being a gun owner, I have been active with firearms since I was 5. I had my first single shot 22 when I was 7, and was allowed to go out alone with it at 8, BUT we lived in Rural Eastern kentucky where guns are viewed as tools, and are/were treated with ultimate respect. Any horseplay with a gun, would result in an ass whooping that you would still be feeling today.

I honestly remember my brother (a year younger almost to the day) and I going squirrel, rabbit turkey hunting as kids, but we were EXACTLY hunting for the table Meals often consisted of beans/rice and whatever came from the garden, or came from the woods. There was no EBT cards (and even if there was, my family had far too much pride to ever consider it)

I was also an Infantryman for 6 years in the Army, so I have had a lot of experience with some weapons most people have never got a chance at.

Guns do not fascinate me at all, I have them, I practice to stay sharp, I hunt still today (yes, I keep the meat, and never for a trophy) but I see too many idiots running around Wally world with their sidearm on, and if the occasion to draw ever came up, would shit their pants more often than not.

Paddock was insane, but no law/screening would have ever caught that. You want my guns? why? I have more range time than 99.9%of everyone in this country, and know what I am doing with my weapons. If I am carrying, you wont see it, and if I draw it, be sure I will use it, but I am not going to cheese up my pants either.

You find a good way to get those nuts away from the guns, without harming the majority of the ones who do it the right way, i get it. Most Americans would be good with that.

btw, Ogion, as of 2016 36% of homes have a gun.

When I go pheasant hunting, I take my howitzer. Only way to bring those fuckers down

BB, stop People are actually having a good debate here, leave the sarcasm to all our other threads...lol

BTW, only 21% of adults own guns. I didn't say "homes" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/19/just-three-percent-of-adults-own-half-of-americas-guns/

Frankly, I don't think anyone is particularly interested in responsible hunters having guns. Provided you do your part to make sure they don't fall into the hands of terrorists or gang bangers, or shoot at people (http://people.com/archive/a-tragic-hunting-accident-in-maine-kills-a-mother-in-her-own-backyard-and-ends-in-the-shooters-acquittal-vol-34-no-18/) or their dogs (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41353955) and participate in registration and training to ensure that the hunter is in fact responsible, I see no problem.

And actually, the current interpretation of the 2d Amendment is on VERY shaky legal ground for the simple fact taht it runs squarely counter to an important judicial canon that all words in a law or the constitution have some operative effect and can't be rendered "mere surplussage" by a reading. As it stands, the current reading is facially wrong, because the firs clause of the Amendment has no operative effect. That's an obvious legal error. (Yes, I'm a lawyer). So, frankly, that reading is a single stolen seat away from being overturned.

In any event, it's extremely hard to see constitutional objections to regulation of arms, given that the phrase appears in the text of the amendment. If you want to go historical, then the only protected arms are those in the control of a militia.

And frankly, the notion that if you draw your gun you'll use it on someone makes me want to take your gun. Last I checked, I never voted to give you the power to engage in extrajudicial killings, and neither did anyone else.

I generally do not listen to people who start with "From my young son/daughter," in politically motivated speech. 1. It deflects any criticism of the post away from the poster, limiting accountability. 2. It politicizes your children. Only moron lefties like Jimmy Kimmell do that. 3. It is an appeal to emotion, so the argument starts off with a flaw. 4. 90% of the time it isn't true.

@ President Eden
re; MajorMitchell, have you ever shot a gun? I've shot semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns at targets on a range before. The shit is just plain *fun* and has nothing to do with ever hoping to turn it on a person. I don't own any of those weapons, just had a buddy who let me use them. I never had any intention of pointing those guns at another person. Trying to hit a target is fun. The process of improving your aim and getting better at your craft is a process of self-improvement that appeals to the most fundamental desire of any man, to be the best form of himself in any activity he pursues. It's the same sense of accomplishment you can get from hitting a new bench press max or lower mile-run time, or even getting your first solo win in Diplomacy or coming back from being down to 1 center to participating in the draw: you set out to achieve a goal, and you hit it.

This is exactly what North Korea are doing ..press that button ...wow have you ever seen a happier man when a launch goes well.

That doesnt make it right ..