Wouldn't it be worth it to disarm everyone to prevent tragedies?

[undeterred]

What if everyone gave up their guns... then when somebody lost control there would be a limit to the damage they could inflict on human lives.

Wouldn't it be worth the sacrifice?

[MrCoffee]

1. Sort of like gutting habeas is worth it to fight terra?

[REP]

97. But Doesn't It Make You Feeeeeeeeel Better?

Excellent point; one that is sure to be missed by those who want to feeeeeeel better about sacrifices they won't have to make.

[sweetheart]

2. disarm the dollar, and the guns will follow

[me b zola]

3. And if we all gave up our cars...

Then the 30,000 people/year that die in auto accidents would be alive! Wouldn't that be worth the sacrifice?

No, we'll keep our guns. But maybe republicans should have to undergo extra scrutiny before they can purchase guns. :evilgrin:

[deathdog]

25. I'd be cool with that.

[stevietheman]

4. No. Doing so would be an invitation to tyranny and unrelenting crime. n/t

n/t

[deathdog]

23. We have tyranny and unrelenting crime now.

Maybe we should try something new.

[thirdpower]

30. Crimes been dropping for over ten years...

w/ only a slight increase last year and tens of millions of privately owned firearms added.

[deathdog]

34. It's higher in states with lax gun laws

This fact has been noted for years--the looser the gun laws, the higher the crime rate.

[thirdpower]

36. False.

It has always been mixed. Unless you're claiming DC has "lax gun laws" or Vermont has high crime.

[jtb33]

87. Yeah - DC, CA, and IL have lower violent crime than...

AZ, AK, UT...

:eyes:

[stevietheman]

81. Nonsense.

Bush hasn't gotten *that* far (yet). And crime isn't *that* bad.

If citizens don't have the choice to be armed if they feel threatened, then the risks for committing crimes go down, because if law-abiding citizens aren't armed, criminals will be.

And when I speak of tyranny, I mean full-on tyranny. Right now, we have a bunch of fascist-wannabes in the Bush Regime, and it looks like various forces are conspiring to stop them in their tracks, but if citizens were mostly unarmed, a government would be far more emboldened to come down on us.

[smirkymonkey]

115. Touche!

[Totallybushed]

5. Oh, yeah.

Criminals first.

[endarkenment]

6. No.

But they would like you to think so. Not with this government. Not now.

[Double T]

7. NEVER give up the RIGHT to 'keep and bear arms'.............

the reason should be BLAZINGLY obvious.

[deathdog]

26. Something to do with a "well-regulated militia"? nt

[thirdpower]

31. Something to do w/ "The right of the People"...

[deathdog]

33. But "well-regulated militia" is in there, too.

How do you know which part of the Amendment to ignore?

[thirdpower]

37. So you're claiming "The People" does not mean...

the same "People" as to the rest of the Constitution?

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

[deathdog]

89. I claiming a well-regulated militia means a well-regulated militia.

What's so difficult about that?

[MrCoffee]

91. Thought you didn't know what "well-regulated" means.

[deathdog]

94. Must mean something

You're implying it doesn't mean anything at all. So why is it there?

[thirdpower]

93. An I'm claiming "The People" are precedent

over a prefatory clause.

What's so difficult about that?

[Spider Jerusalem]

40. Difference between 18th century English and 21st century English.

'Well regulated' means 'well-trained'. And it doesn't refer to the National Guard or anything of the sort; the historical background of the idea of a 'well-regulated militia' is the English Civil War, and the American Revolution; 'militia' means essentially anyone trained in the use of arms, and the purpose of these militias was to act as a counter to the imposition of tyranny by government. George Mason, "the father of the Bill of Rights", said "the militia is nothing less than the whole people"; the legal definition of the "unorganised militia" under US law includes all male citizens between the ages of seventeen and forty-five. Not to mention that the right to bear arms also derives from the English Bill of Rights, part of which states "all men have the right to bear arms according to their station".

[fishwax]

85. why ignore either part? n/t

[QuestionAll...]

8. only if the military industrial complex does so as well.

and the government.

I'm not a fan of guns, but I sure wouldn't want us little people be the only ones not to have them.

[Cerridwen]

9. No.

Sorry, gang, not going to go all anti-gun here.

We need to figure out how to make violence something to be avoided at all costs. We need to make violence as ugly and disgusting and horrific to contemplate as how we view pedophilia. No quick fix for that.

It's the violence, period.

[JNelson6563]

10. Ban all guns!

Make the streets safe for a government takeover!

[cynatnite]

11. I'm more uncomfortable with who would keep the guns...

than actually giving up our gun.

[genie_weenie]

12. What do you do when the Federal Government reinstitutes the draft?

for the invasion of Iran and the next 15 years of Iraqi Freedom?

[deathdog]

20. You really intend to meet with your draft board carrying a gun?

That's a little scary.

[genie_weenie]

22. Well, I won't be called by a draft board

They'll just recall my dumb ass...

[deathdog]

24. And having a gun will help you how? nt

[genie_weenie]

42. Sorry, I forgot if I'm in the land

of Tyranny or Live Free or Die.

[deathdog]

92. I'll try again....

Having a gun will help you how?
Whom, exactly, are you planning to shoot?

[genie_weenie]

98. I'm not going to shoot anyone.

[deathdog]

100. Then that makes a gun kind of unnecessary, don't it? nt

[slaveplanet]

13. wouldn't it be worth it

to relegate posts like this to the gungeon?

The clogging of GD with this nonsense is a tragedy.

The only sacrifice you'd have to make is activating an extra link or 2.

[merh]

14. you don't understand, if the teacher and the teacher aid and all those

kids had guns, none of this would have happened.

Its us crazy liberals who hate the 2nd amendment that made this happen. :sarcasm: :crazy:

[kestrel91316]

15. I like the Amish method. Teach your children that it is ALWAYS

wrong to harm another person. Then LIVE IT. Show it every day in your own words and actions. Set an example.

And remove those who don't do the same from your society.

[ieoeja]

49. Hollywood Amish

Actually, the Amish are no more averse to fighting than the rest of us. They are exempt from military service for the same reason they are exempt from jury duty. They have a religious prohibition against GOVERNMENT, not killing.

[kestrel91316]

53. WRONG. Take your lies elsewhere. The Amish are

Anabaptists like the Mennonites (they are technically "Amish Mennonites", a stricter sect than mennonites per se). Nonviolence is one of their central tenets. They are so nonviolent, it's even a violation of their meidung to hit back at someone who has hit you. They are prohibited from using violence even in self-defense. Don't look at the teens prior to joining the church for your ideas on how Amish behave. The teens are not bound by the rules because they are NOT MEMBERS YET.


Do your homework. I recommend reading Amish Society by John Hostetler, though it's a rather dry scholarly work.


PS - They DO NOT "have a religious prohibition against government". They have a prohibition against members participating in government by running for office and such. Voting is fine with them, but campaigning is not done. They pay their taxes just like you and me, contrary to some garbage I have read here. They DO pay property taxes. They DO pay income taxes. They have received an exemption from paying into Social Security but as a result are not allowed to collect it, but they don't want or need it because they ALWAYS take care of their elders and handicapped on their own, as family responsibility. There are no Amish in nursing homes. You will also find, if you do proper research, that they are BIG advocates of separation of church and state because of the way they were treated (murdered) in Europe for not belonging to the state religion.

Sigh. Ignoramuses really disturb me.

[Leopolds Ghost]

116. If ignoramuses disturb you then you should know that Anabaptists

By definition have a prohibition towards government for the same reason Anarchists do -- because it is founded on violence and the taxation and police powers are founded on the threat of violence. This prohibition has become watered down in recent years. However if you are religious and claim to understand Anabaptism you should read up on the ample resources that are available online about the historical roots of Anabaptism. Their attitude towards government is "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's." Meaning do not submit to government authority, but also do not resist them nor withhold THEIR money from them.

[deathdog]

95. Wrong

They are pacifists, a part of the Historic Peace Church tradition--along with the Mennonites, Brethren and Quakers. They are absolutely averse to fighting. I'm a Mennonite--my family has been for centuries. I have Amish and Old Order Mennonite relatives. We are all averse to fighting. Period.

[undeterred]

83. I am a Quaker Christian

I chose it because I believe peace/nonviolence is the most central teaching of Jesus. Its not a set of rules or prohibitions, its a way of being in the world. Mennonite, Amish, and Quaker teachings are similar in this regard.

[LostinVA]

108. The Amish harm people plenty -- an their idea of justice is screwy

I am very against the US government allowing them to self-rule themselves... it leads to many, many abuses against people, especially children and women. Being shunned for two weeks because you raped your sister for ten years isn't exactly justice... especially when that sister is then excommunicated from the community... and the man is left there to continue being a sexual predator. For just one example.

Never forget that Amish are extreme Fundamentalists.

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. No, it wouldn't.

"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military." - William S. Burroughs

[mainegreen]

17. Not while evil men want feudalism. nt

[sandnsea]

18. It's the vigilante mentality

That all you need is a gun and all the bad guys will go away. It prevents us from looking at the underlying rot in our society and perpetuates the shoot 'em up mentality that causes people to see killing as a solution in the first place.

Gun owners need to take responsibility for their guns and put them away. They need to stop perpetuating the idea that guns are solutions to anything except putting food on the table if you're starving.

We didn't have these crazy ideas that everyone ought to carry a gun and play shoot 'em up in the streets until the NRA went nuts in the 80's.

[thirdpower]

32. And why did they "go nuts"...

Because of DNC "leadership trying to ban effectively all rifle ammunition.

[undeterred]

19. Be the change you seek. Live Peace.

[acmejack]

21. All your guns will stop them when they come for you.

Just as they saved Koresh when they came for him. Just as they helped those at Ruby Ridge prevail. You'll get off a round or two, maybe get lucky but "they" will take you out. The firearms industry is a money maker, a big money maker. Real profit center that second amendment.

Priced a nice 1911 lately?

[razors edge]

39. MK IV Gold Cup 1974 never fired

about 800.00

add crimson laser sights for 250.00

[Matariki]

27. Ever notice how social violence goes up in 'times of war'?

And violence against women in times of fascism and totalitarianism? THAT'S what we need to give up.

[undeterred]

28. It would be a sacrifice, but I think that human lives are worth it.

[William Bloode]

29. I have no problem giving up my guns.

I would love to see the total removal of all guns from EVRYONE! No cops with guns, no military, no criminals, nothing. Untill that time, i reckon i'll keep mine.

[slackmaster]

48. Too late for me - I lost them in a tragic ocean kayak accident

If anyone asks.

[mainegreen]

60. Couldn't be better said!

:toast:

[defiant1]

35. Yeah, so....

You are aware that people have been killing each other since before guns were invented? So removing the guns will not solve the problem.

We could debate our lax gun regulations all day, all week, and once again the following Monday, but this fact will not change:

It's not the guns, it's the lunatics carrying them.

d1

[ellacott]

38. We'd probably start seeing suicide bombers

and/or McGiver impersonators

[benEzra]

41. What if everyone gave up their drugs?

We could outlaw drugs, and then nobody could get them anymore, and we'd no longer have any addiction-related crime, no more homelessness related to substance abuse.

Oh, wait...we tried that, didn't we? It's been 80 years now, and diacetyl morphine is now easier to get than (legal) prescription foot powder. We tried it with alcohol, too, as a matter of fact.

Between a quarter and a third of registered Dems and indies own guns, lawfully and responsibly. We would like to keep them, thanks.

[enfield collector]

43. don't forget the war on poverty as well.

[mark414]

44. when they kick at your front door, how you gonna come?

with your hands on your head,
or on the trigger of your gun?

when the law break in,
how you gonna go?
shot down on the pavement,
or waiting on death row?

You can crush us,
You can bruise us,
But you'll have to answer to:
Ohhh oh, the guns of Brixton

[otherlander]

64. ...

:toast:

[wicket]

45. No thanks, I like the 2nd amendment

n/t

[aikoaiko]

46. In principle its a good idea, but in practical terms, its a bad idea

I'll keep mine because bad guys won't ever give theirs up.

[slackmaster]

47. Another stupid "let's just ban them" thread

What if everyone gave up their guns...

I assume that by "everyone" you mean literally everyone, including police, military, and violent career criminals.

Right?

The last time that was the case was called the Dark Ages. It didn't work out very well for ordinary people.

[undeterred]

51. What if we worked on creating a culture of peace?

Starting by returning to dialogue instead of always turning first to verbal violence or the threat of physical force or deadly force? Would that really be so terrible?

I'd like to try creating a culture of peace before knocking it. Care to join me?

[slackmaster]

52. I'm all for a culture of peace, undeterred

But kindky keep your grubbies off my gun collection.

[undeterred]

57. I'd only ask that people do this voluntarily

not by force, not by a ban.

[slackmaster]

63. Generally speaking the people most likely to give them up voluntarily

Are the ones LEAST likely to pose a threat.

And you had better be prepared to offer something tangible in return, like cash.

[Irreverend IX]

50. What if we gave up our free press to prevent tragedies?

LA wouldn't have been consumed by riots following the Rodney King incident if the news media hadn't discussed it. Think how much death and destruction could have been prevented if all news stories were subject to government approval. If the state oversaw all usage of mass media outlets like television and the Internet, there would be a much smaller chance of such inflammatory information going public.

Also, those who give up liberty for security deserve neither. And when you really want to cause mass death, you shouldn't use a gun, but a bomb, the ingredients for which can be purchased at any supermarket.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

54. It wouldn't entirely prevent this kind of thing.

I'm English, and I'm a strong advocate of gun-control - I think America would benefit a great deal from repealing the 2nd ammendment and introducing UK level gun control. However, we shouldn't oversell it - while it would undoubtedly make things like this less common, it wouldn't prevent them happening alltogether.

There's no better way to weaken a case than overstating it.

[karlrschneider]

55. Feel free to give yours up. I am keeping mine.

KS

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

56. "What if everyone gave up their guns."

What if when we bent over monkeys always flew out of our butts.

[leftofthedial]

58. no, no, no!

We need MORE arms, not less.

If all the teachers had been wearing military-grade body armor (the good stuff, not the crap rummie gives to our troops) and packing assault weapons and if the schools were prewired with tactical nukes, the last week would have been a different story.

[Canadiana]

59. I am shocked at the responses to this post

What civilian needs guns in this day and age?? COME ON. Nobody needs to hunt. No civilian needs a handgun. If civilians didn't have handguns, then one wouldn't need a handgun to protect him/herself...its circular here people. If there were no guns people would be better off - period. Guns are machines specifically MADE TO KILL THIGNS...I think they are digusting.

[slackmaster]

65. How about a rock-solid guarantee of safety for me and future generations?

Can you assure me that no civilian will ever have need for an effective defensive weapon ever again? That nobody will ever face a robber, carjacker, or rapist? That there will never be looting in the wake of natural disasters?

Nobody needs to hunt.

Farmers need to be able to control varmints, and there are still some people who like to eat wild meat.

No civilian needs a handgun. No civilian needs a handgun. If civilians didn't have handguns, then one wouldn't need a handgun to protect him/herself...its circular here people.

I call that "circular nonsense", the core fallacy being that the only purpose for a handgun is to defend one's self against another handgun. That is ridiculous.

If there were no guns people would be better off - period.

You mean like in the year 1320 or so? Yeah, much better off. :eyes:

Guns are machines specifically MADE TO KILL THIGNS...

Sometimes "thigns" need to be killed.

I think they are digusting.

Then don't buy one.

What does YOUR assessment of the needs of others have to do with anything BTW?

[undeterred]

69. I've never needed one and I never will.

[slackmaster]

72. I have never needed one either, and hopefully never will

And until very recently I never needed a fire extinguisher, but I was mighty damn glad I had easy access to one when I did.

[MindPilot]

82. Yep. Less than a week ago I needed mine

A guy the cops were chasing climbed over my fence and ran through my yard. First thing I did was call 911, the second thing I did was slap a clip into my 9mm in case that guy's next move in attempt to elude included entering my house.

As it turned out the police caught him in the alley, but I was certainly glad I was ready if it hadn't gone so smoothly.

[undeterred]

67. Me too!

I'm talking about a different way of 'being' in the world.

I'm trying to imagine what the Dalai Lama would say about giving up weapons... would he argue against it?

[slackmaster]

68. The Dalai Lama is a gun owner and a shooter

He also uses an air rifle to shoot a hawks that come in after the birds he feeds - not to kill, just to chase them away. It's nice to see a religious leader not taking a 'holier than thou' attitude...

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/013179.htm

[undeterred]

74. Clearly thats not the same thing as having a gun

which is intended to be used as a weapon on another human being.

[slackmaster]

77. See thirdpower's reply

A well-documented quote of the Dalai Lama on self-defense. He beat me to it.

[undeterred]

75. Clearly thats not the same thing as having a gun

which is intended to be used as a weapon on another human being.

[thirdpower]

73. Dalai Lama on Self Defense..

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."

The Dalai Lama (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times), speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate.

And Ghandi:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

-- Mahatma Gandhi (Autobiography, by M.K. Gandhi, p.446)

[undeterred]

76. But its also reasonable to choose not to use weapons.

[thirdpower]

78. If you so choose...

I choose to use whatever means at my disposal to defend myself and my family.

[slackmaster]

79. Not if you are a parent and your children are threatened

Then it is not reasonable to decline use of any and all available ways to defend them.

[benEzra]

106. It is indeed, if that is your CHOICE. I choose to own them,

But its also reasonable to choose not to use weapons.

It is indeed, if that is your CHOICE. Personally, I choose to own them, as does my wife, my sister, and most of my friends, but I respect your choice not to.

Owning a firearm is a deeply personal choice, and thinking people can come to differing conclusions on the issue.

[Elwood P Dowd]

80. I've owned guns for 47 years

Living way out in the boonies, they are a necessity. Every now and then I have to us 'em to kill a rabid dog or poisonous snake. On two occasions I've used them to scare off people trying to help themselves to my property.

If you want the republicans to win in a landslide, just keep pushing gun confiscation.

[fishwax]

86. you can no more get rid of guns among civilians than get rid of cancer

How does one go about making sure that no civilian has a gun?

[spoony]

88. Disarm all criminals. Then we'll talk about mine. n/t

[otherlander]

61. We now have a President who

claims the right to arrest and imprison Americans without trials. A Canadian with no connections to terrorism was kidnapped and tortured by the CIA. Habeas corpus has been suspended. It has been admitted that there were secret jails, and there's probably more that we don't know.

No. It would most definitely not be worth it.

[SmokingJacket]

62. In a theoretical world... sure!

But in this world, in the USA 2006, it's a quick way to make the Dems lose elections, Republicans stay in power forever, and will make it easier for the govt to shoo undesirables into the camps...

I hate guns and wish they would disappear. But I know the world I live in, and it ain't happening here. And it's a right that some people value deeply, and though I don't happen to feel the same way, I have to respect them.

I *would* argue strenuously for greater gun "regulation" -- better registration, licensing, etc. That could happen.

[cornermouse]

66. No. Not even I would go along with that.

I think they should control who has access to guns a little better. I also think the concealed carry law is about the stupidest thing I ever heard of.

I can think of at least a couple of people who I know are gun owners who probably should never be allowed to touch a gun, any gun. But if they take gun safety courses and don't have a record, I think most people should be able to keep their guns.

[Balbus]

70. Why not, since it worked so well with drugs....

Nobody does drugs any more since they were made illegal - I'm sure it will be the same way with guns.

[Rex]

71. No and here's why.

Humans, mostly male, have been killing each other with various weapons for thousands of years. You take away the gun and we go back to old school killing with swords and crossbows. You take those away and we go back to killing eachother with spears and rocks. You would have to take it ALL away, which is impossible to do.

I will give up my guns, when violence is no longer used to get ones way. I doubt that will happen in my lifetime.

[Nevernose]

105. Tell that to Germany, Japan, France, England, Switzerland, etc.

Even the one that have guns (Switzerland, Germany) don't have nearly the problem with gun violence that we do. There were something liek 14,000 homicides by guns here in America, and only 20 homicides by knife. Compared to Japan which has, what, something like 20?

I'm with Michael Moore on this one. Violence in America, and especially GUN violence, has more to do with fear than our weapon of choice. If we can judge ourselves by other industrialized nations, then perhaps our better natures are more likely to overcome our animistic natures when both guns and fear are removed from our daily lives.

Yes, I own guns. One I bought, the others I inherited. No, they're not in the house at the moment, since my kid is still at a young age.

[zreosumgame]

84. no, that is as wrong as the NRA wanting everyone to have nukes

going from one extream to the other is WRONG, WRONG, and just to make the point, wrong.

[Jacobin]

90. um, I don't know about you, but I for one, don't want the police

being the only people with weapons, knowing the police that I do and the government we have.

[REP]

96. No.

You're asking others to make a sacrifice that does not apply to you so you can feel better. That's not only naive, it's simplistic.

[SIIHPAPP]

99. Guns are icky...(nt)

nt

[Unrepentant Fenian]

101. WARNING!!! Trolls from gun boards

It seems some gun forums take childish pleasure in trolling DU. Here's an example
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=505093

It might be kind of fun to sign up on their boards and visit Bubba every now and then!!

[benEzra]

107. Most trolls quickly get tombstoned...

as they're generally easy to spot.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that most pro-gun DU'ers are trolls, though. Between a quarter and a third of Dems and indies own guns, and gun-owning progressives are well represented on this forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1689245

[LostinVA]

109. Oh, there are lots of long-tern trollsters on DU

[Lorax]

102. Not in my neighborhood

"What civilian needs guns in this day and age?? COME ON. Nobody needs to hunt. No civilian needs a handgun. If civilians didn't have handguns, then one wouldn't need a handgun to protect him/herself...its circular here people. If there were no guns people would be better off - period. Guns are machines specifically MADE TO KILL THIGNS...I think they are digesting."

You obviously don't live in my neighborhood. I have police helicopters over my house with their search lights on looking for someone at least once a week. My husband works nights and I am often home alone. You can bet I load my .38 when I hear the helicopters overhead. How long would it take that person they are looking for to get into my house and hold me at gunpoint? Take me hostage and shoot me before the police get in. No thank you. If I have to choose between another person's life and my own, I'm going to win every single time.

The police can't always protect us. They are not set up to be as proactive as they would need to be in order to truly protect us. Most of what they do is reactive, not proactive.

We need to be addressing the roots of all this violence - not the tools of the violence. That's like treating the symptoms of a disease but not really treating the disease itself.

[undeterred]

103. What I don't hear in this thread is a concern for the innocent victims

of gun violence. Children at school. Victims of domestic violence. There are other countries where the populace and the police are less armed than we are in this country, and somehow they survive.

I don't think there are any rights or freedoms that can be absolute or unlimited. Probably no one here would like to see weapons allowed on a flight they were taking, where they could become the victim. I do believe that this illegal war and warmongering by Bushco is stimulating violence in our society.

What are we going to do about it... you don't like my suggestion. OK, what's yours?

[benEzra]

111. Well, you didn't ask about that in the OP...

you started the thread by proposing that we be forced to adopt your choices on the gun issue at gunpoint--which is what gun confiscation would boil down to--and the responses generally address that proposition.

No, I don't beliefe the right to keep and bear arms is absolute or unlimited, any more than the right to speech or press is. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Federal and state firearms law, use-of-force laws, and the like, but suffice it to say that it is much more limited than the right to speech and press. For example, all automatic weapons are tightly controlled at the Federal level, no one with a felony record (or even certain misdemeanors) or who has been adjudicated mentally incompetent can so much as touch a gun or a single round of ammunition, no gun sale can occur from a dealer unless a Federal background check is run, guns are prohibited within 1000 feet of any school property unless you are authorized by the state to carry a firearm, etc.

My sympathies do go out to the families of those killed and assaulted in the recent attacks. I have two kids in school myself, aged 7 and 5. But I recognize that threatening violence against gun owners such as myself in order to conform us to your ideal of a gun-free society is counterproductive, and that unless you deal with the terrible state of mental health care (and mental health!) in this country as it now is, you won't do a thing about random violence. Even if you magically eliminated guns entirely; one of the worst random killings in the U.S. was carried out using matches, some gasoline, and some chain to lock a nightclub's exits shut, and IIRC the death toll was somewhere between 50 and 100.

Other countries--even those with little or no gun ownership--do have such incidents, including Japan (e.g., the Osaka school rampage, in which eight students were killed). But presumably for cultural reasons, Japanese with mental issues are more likely to just kill themselves, and less likely to take it out on others.

[undeterred]

113. No, I never suggested "force" - you projected it.

You converted my suggestion, my "what if" into "force at gunpoint". That's about as extreme a distortion as someone could make of my post. Its a lie.

"What if everyone gave up their guns... then when somebody lost control there would be a limit to the damage they could inflict on human lives.

Wouldn't it be worth the sacrifice?"

[benEzra]

117. Then I apologize for misunderstanding your intent...

Most posts that discuss "getting rid of guns" envision doing so by restricting guns via the law, which is what I assumed you were suggesting. I apologize for misunderstanding your intent, and I appreciate that you would not use force to push your view on others.

The problem as I see it is that the people who cause harm with guns (primarily criminals, though you have the occasional mental health case) are not the type of people who would care about creating a better society. Those of us who DO care about the good of others, don't harm others, whether or not we own guns.

[Matariki]

104. word should get out more widely that progressives are mostly 'pro gun'

and by that i mean pro second amendment. it would help us win elections.

[KG]

110. yes, it would be worth it..

[michaelpush]

112. Nope, wont work...

The solution is fixing the roots of violence, which are many, and, complex. The other solution is time, that is, thru the progression of the human species.

[Red Right and BLUE]

114. So that only the gov't/military has guns? NO thanks. nt