Politics Gunman opens fire at White House Correspondents Dinner

[Phatguysrule]

Everybody is. It’s the only way to solve this problem right? More guns is the answer….. I thought we all agreed on this.

Literally nobody in this forum has taken that stance in at least the last several years I've been paying attention to this debate.

The position has been that we have so many restrictions already that increasing restrictions on law abiding citizens now results in further and further diminishing returns. To the point that more restrictions on law abiding citizens as a political position has become counterproductive.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Any educated person with common sense knows this is the ONLY way to fix this. More guns is the answer.

Let me know when you want to engage in honest dialogue and I'd be happy to discuss your concerns.

 

[CORipCity]

Imagine if there were other countries on planet earth with policies that could demonstrate what works and doesn’t work vis a vis gun violence (or anything else).

Guess we’ll never know!

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[PCmor7]

Literally nobody in this forum has taken that stance in at least the last several years I've been paying attention to this debate.

The position has been that we have so many restrictions already that increasing restrictions on law abiding citizens now results in further and further diminishing returns. To the point that more restrictions on law abiding citizens as a political position has become counterproductive.

I think he's being facetious.

 

[THE HCP]

Let me know when you want to engage in honest dialogue and I'd be happy to discuss your concerns.

There is no such thing as honest dialogue about guns. Not even dialogue at all to be honest. I’ll say one last time, I’ve seen people killed in front of me by the hand of guns and there is nothing more to talk about. There is no place for them in society, flat out.

 

[Phatguysrule]

There is no such thing as honest dialogue about guns. Not even dialogue at all to be honest. I’ll say one last time, I’ve seen people killed in front of me by the hand of guns and there is nothing more to talk about. There is no place for them in society, flat out.

I understand you're emotional about this topic. I don't fault you for that.

We should not make public policy based on emotion, IMO.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I think he's being facetious.

Looked like an invite to discussion. I'm always interested in these kinds of debates regarding emotional positions any time somebody wants to go there.

As soon as it became clear he didn't actually want a discussion I stated my position and dropped it.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Imagine if there were other countries on planet earth with policies that could demonstrate what works and doesn’t work vis a vis gun violence (or anything else).

Guess we’ll never know!

This is true. There are countries who enacted more strict gun control.

About about the same time the assault weapons ban in the United States expired due to being hugely unpopular and generally ineffective.

Both the UK and Australia enacted sweeping gun control.

While Australia showed about the same drop in violent crime and murder rates the following 30 years as the United States (a time when the United States was expanding access to guns, and after ending the assault weapons ban), The UK showed virtually no reduction in violent crime or murder rates.

So gun restrictions don't actually appear to make much of a reliable difference when compared to the same areas before restrictions.

Rather, the much greater impact on violent crime and murder rates tends to be access to education and health care. Countries who have a better Ginny coefficient tend to have lower violent crime and murder rates.

And making those changes are far less expensive (while being far more effective at reducing violent crime and murder rates), both in dollars, and in political capital, than any further gun restrictions.

The reductions in violent crime and murder rates after the increased spending for COVID have been far greater than anything any gun control has ever shown.

The attacks on Trump are simply a result of his divisive actions and rhetoric.

Hell, guns are virtually illegal in Japan and one of their most popular former Prime Ministers was assassinated with homemade gun.

You're simply not going to meaningfully impact attacks on political figures or emotional targets by increasing restrictions on law abiding citizens. That has never worked.

 

[CORipCity]

This is true. There are countries who enacted more strict gun control.

About about the same time the assault weapons ban in the United States expired due to being hugely unpopular and generally ineffective.

Both the UK and Australia enacted sweeping gun control.

While Australia showed about the same drop in violent crime and murder rates the following 30 years as the United States (a time when the United States was expanding access to guns, and after ending the assault weapons ban), The UK showed virtually no reduction in violent crime or murder rates.

So gun restrictions don't actually appear to make much of a reliable difference when compared to the same areas before restrictions.

Rather, the much greater impact on violent crime and murder rates tends to be access to education and health care. Countries who have a better Ginny coefficient tend to have lower violent crime and murder rates.

And making those changes are far less expensive (while being far more effective at reducing violent crime and murder rates), both in dollars, and in political capital, than any further gun restrictions.

The reductions in violent crime and murder rates after the increased spending for COVID have been far greater than anything any gun control has ever shown.

The attacks on Trump are simply a result of his divisive actions and rhetoric.

Hell, guns are virtually illegal in Japan and one of their most popular former Prime Ministers was assassinated with homemade gun.

You're simply not going to meaningfully impact attacks on political figures or emotional targets by increasing restrictions on law abiding citizens. That has never worked.

Your response was largely a strawman, and your confinement to these at-the-margins assault weapons bans is a dishonest argument. No, merely banning specific types of guns doesn’t always fix the problem, particularly when decades of flooding our society with all other kinds of guns and ammunition for a bloodthirsty American society has preceded it. That was never meant to be a panacea, and citing one incident of gun violence in Japan as evidence that gun restrictions there don’t work is also incredibly dishonest. It doesn’t really sound like you’re someone who likes to engage in honest rhetoric about guns.

That said, I agree that a much stronger social safety net, Medicare, for all, and better mental health services, including making housing a human right, would certainly reduce gun violence.

But omitting any kind of gun legislation from that formula is stupid. “Restrictions on law abiding gun owners”? I don’t even know what that means. Everyone’s a “law-abiding gun owner” until they’re not. Australia instituted a sweeping gun ban in the 1990s that worked. America is the gun outlier, and it’s because of access to guns. Period.

 

[PCmor7]

Looked like an invite to discussion. I'm always interested in these kinds of debates regarding emotional positions any time somebody wants to go there.

As soon as it became clear he didn't actually want a discussion I stated my position and dropped it.

I scanned down but I didn't notice that you already had concluded what I posted.

Apologies.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Your response was largely a strawman, and your confinement to these at-the-margins assault weapons bans is a dishonest argument. No, merely banning specific types of guns doesn’t always fix the problem, particularly when decades of flooding our society with all other kinds of guns and ammunition for a bloodthirsty American society has preceded it. That was never meant to be a panacea, and citing one incident of gun violence in Japan as evidence that gun restrictions there don’t work is also incredibly dishonest. It doesn’t really sound like you’re someone who likes to engage in honest rhetoric about guns.

That said, I agree that a much stronger social safety net, Medicare, for all, and better mental health services, including making housing a human right, would certainly reduce gun violence.

But omitting any kind of gun legislation from that formula is stupid. “Restrictions on law abiding gun owners”? I don’t even know what that means. Everyone’s a “law-abiding gun owner” until they’re not. Australia instituted a sweeping gun ban in the 1990s that worked. America is the gun outlier, and it’s because of access to guns. Period.

Australia's sweeping gun ban "worked" for reducing violent crime and murder rates about as well as the United States expanding access to guns and ending the assault weapons ban, and over the same time frame.

In other words, did it really work? Or did Western Civilization tend to be less violent in those great economic times?

The UK had a very similar law at the same time. Which hardly reduced violent crime and murder rates at all, but they also already had greater access to social services than the US or Australia, so wouldn't be as likely to see the same gains.

The Japan example wasn't an example of typical violent crime or murder. It was an example that even if you could eliminate legal gun ownership from the equation (we can't) you can't expect it to eliminate this kind of a threat to public officials.

I never suggested we should eliminate the possibility of any kind of legislation. I specifically said further restrictions on law-abiding citizens.

I'm absolutely 100% for exchanging current legislation that doesn't work for legislation that could work. Even for legislation that the right would be more likely to accept.

The vast majority of gun crime occurs at the hands of known criminals.

Giving law abiding gun owners the tools and incentive to prevent those criminals from obtaining guns could be more effective than current gun laws. This is just my personal theory, and I've laid it out in the cold dead hands thread, and would be willing to discuss it again in that thread.

The solution to reducing frequency of the kind of assault this thread is about is to lay off the hateful and divisive rhetoric and increase access to quality social services and education.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I scanned down but I didn't notice that you already had concluded what I posted.

Apologies.

No problem at all. Thanks for attempting to diffuse a potential misunderstanding early.

 

[CORipCity]

Australia's sweeping gun ban "worked" for reducing violent crime and murder rates about as well as the United States expanding access to guns and ending the assault weapons ban, and over the same time frame.

In other words, did it really work? Or did Western Civilization tend to be less violent in those great economic times?

The UK had a very similar law at the same time. Which hardly reduced violent crime and murder rates at all, but they also already had greater access to social services than the US or Australia, so wouldn't be as likely to see the same gains.

The Japan example wasn't an example of typical violent crime or murder. It was an example that even if you could eliminate legal gun ownership from the equation (we can't) you can't expect it to eliminate this kind of a threat to public officials.

I never suggested we should eliminate the possibility of any kind of legislation. I specifically said further restrictions on law-abiding citizens.

I'm absolutely 100% for exchanging current legislation that doesn't work for legislation that could work. Even for legislation that the right would be more likely to accept.

The vast majority of gun crime occurs at the hands of known criminals.

Giving law abiding gun owners the tools and incentive to prevent those criminals from obtaining guns could be more effective than current gun laws. This is just my personal theory, and I've laid it out in the cold dead hands thread, and would be willing to discuss it again in that thread.

The solution to reducing frequency of the kind of assault this thread is about is to lay off the hateful and divisive rhetoric and increase access to quality social services and education.

Australia's gun death rate is currently about .09 deaths per 100,000 population.

Canada's is about .74.

Italy .17. Switzerland .14. Sweden .5.

Even Bolivia, not exactly a progressive social utopia, is at .06.

The U.S. is at 4.47. 50X that of Australia.

The United States is only comparable to gun-rampant, near-failed-state countries like Brazil and Mexico.

This isn't an honest debate, just like another poster made clear. Right, center-right, moderates, and even the Center-Left refuse to speak plainly about this: We all know guns are the problem, and restricting guns is the most logical, direct solution to preventing gun violence. That's why even the NRA, CPAC, and other conservative conventions ban guns at their events. They know what the problem is. But milquetoast moderate Democrats pretend to agree that guns aren't the real problem, or at least shouldn't be addressed to the detriment of "lAw-AbiDiNg GuN oWnErs."

We just don't value the lives of, say, elementary school children in this country more than we value the Right/Middle/Center-Left's rights to shoot whatever they want, whenever they want, with a six-pack of Budweister in the back of their Chevy Supermax.

And it all started with the lives we do, and do not value. That's why the origins of the 2nd Amendment are rooted in slave-catcher patrols, and keeping white slave-owners protected from unruly Africans. And it's why the only modern Republican agreement to police guns came after Reagan saw the terrifying visage of black men in "militant" garb carrying guns in Oakland for the Black Panthers.

If you want to continue the legacy of white supremacy and continue to support either toothless legislation (such as piecemeal assault weapons bans) or no legislation at all (the current Right/Center-Right/Center/Center-Left proposition), then at least own the true impetus behind this world-view: White Supremacy and total disregard for the lives of the poor and vulnerable.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Australia's gun death rate is currently about .09 deaths per 100,000 population.

Canada's is about .74.

Italy .17. Switzerland .14. Sweden .5.

Even Bolivia, not exactly a progressive social utopia, is at .06.

The U.S. is at 4.47. 50X that of Australia.

The United States is only comparable to gun-rampant, near-failed-state countries like Brazil and Mexico.

This isn't an honest debate, just like another poster made clear. Right, center-right, moderates, and even the Center-Left refuse to speak plainly about this: We all know guns are the problem, and restricting guns is the most logical, direct solution to preventing gun violence. That's why even the NRA, CPAC, and other conservative conventions ban guns at their events. They know what the problem is. But milquetoast moderate Democrats pretend to agree that guns aren't the real problem, or at least shouldn't be addressed to the detriment of "lAw-AbiDiNg GuN oWnErs."

We just don't value the lives of, say, elementary school children in this country more than we value the Right/Middle/Center-Left's rights to shoot whatever they want, whenever they want, with a six-pack of Budweister in the back of their Chevy Supermax.

And it all started with the lives we do, and do not value. That's why the origins of the 2nd Amendment are rooted in slave-catcher patrols, and keeping white slave-owners protected from unruly Africans. And it's why the only modern Republican agreement to police guns came after Reagan saw the terrifying visage of black men in "militant" garb carrying guns in Oakland for the Black Panthers.

If you want to continue the legacy of white supremacy and continue to support either toothless legislation (such as piecemeal assault weapons bans) or no legislation at all (the current Right/Center-Right/Center/Center-Left proposition), then at least own the true impetus behind this world-view: White Supremacy and total disregard for the lives of the poor and vulnerable.

Well yes, obviously if you remove guns you are going to have less gun crime.

But if the rate of violent crime and murder aren't impacted (compared to prior) then what have you actually solved?

That is what happened in the UK.

Australia saw about the same decline in violent crime and murder rates as the United States over the same time frame.

You are trying to put me in a classification as either supporting "no legislation", or "only supporting assault weapons bans". Which I'm on the record as being opposed to both.

You can't have an honest conversation that way.

Gun control has always been racist. As you alluded to by referencing Reagan v Black Panthers.

The Second Amendment mentions nothing about race. And even if that was their intention, The Constitution has been amended to negate that perceived intention, and now race can no longer be a consideration.

The United States social policies are closer to Mexico and Brazil as well. As well as Russia, which has gun ownership rates about on par with the UK, yet violent crime and murder rays four times higher than even the US.

It is very clear that our attention should be focused on social solutions, not further restrictions on law-abiding citizens.

You are focusing on gun deaths. I am focusing on violent crime and murder rates. Because I don't think a gun death is worse than someone getting bludgeoned to death with bats and hammers (or fists). Or run over by vehicles, killed by arson, poison, or bomb.

You are starting from a position of gun=bad and trying to justify it with numbers.

I'm just concerned with the amount of violence and murder. I'm looking at the most effective way to limit the frequency of violence and murder.

One is actually trying to prevent deaths, the other is just trying to make guns look bad.

 

[CORipCity]

Well yes, obviously if you remove guns you are going to have less gun crime.

But if the rate of violent crime and murder aren't impacted (compared to prior) then what have you actually solved?

That is what happened in the UK.

Australia saw about the same decline in violent crime and murder rates as the United States over the same time frame.

You are trying to put me in a classification as either supporting "no legislation", or "only supporting assault weapons bans". Which I'm on the record as being opposed to both.

You can't have an honest conversation that way.

Gun control has always been racist. As you alluded to by referencing Reagan v Black Panthers.

No, "gun control" is not racist, Ronald Reagan and the Right is/was racist.

And, the use of guns to control people has always been racist. That's essentially the foundational principle of our nation. Ask the First Nation peoples (oh wait, you can't, we killed them all) and the runaway slaves (oh wait, you also can't, we shot and/or hanged them all, and/or sicked dogs on them all.

The Second Amendment mentions nothing about race. And even if that was their intention, The Constitution has been amended to negate that perceived intention, and now race can no longer be a consideration.

Right, we can't mention race, we can just engineer sneaky ways to create the racist effects of laws by hewing our laws to only penalize those who share common characteristics or forced behaviors along racial lines (see: black codes and vagrancy laws immediately following slavery). The 2nd Amendment was a compromise amendment that was staunchly supported and explicitly adhere to by white, southern, slaveowners who wanted to protect their "property" by keeping them in line. This isn't a disputed fact.

The United States social policies are closer to Mexico and Brazil as well. As well as Russia, which has gun ownership rates about on par with the UK, yet violent crime and murder rays four times higher than even the US.

I don't think we have a good idea how many guns there are in Russia, much less the # of gun deaths. But comparing a democratic (for now) society like the U.S. with a totalitarian state isn't exactly the apples-to-apples comparison you think it is. Meanwhile, Australia, Western Europe, the U.K., Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and just about every other developed nation in the world has a fraction of the gun deaths we do. And that's directly due to the lax gun laws in America. Again, this isn't a controversial point.

It is very clear that our attention should be focused on social solutions, not further restrictions on law-abiding citizens.

Adam Lanza was a law-abiding gun owner. Stephen Paddock was a law-abiding citizen. Omar Mateen was granted a license in Florida to carry a firearm as a security guard.
Stop using the "further restrict law abiding citizens" canard to claim we can't prevent mass-murder. It's insulting to people of ordinary intelligence.

You are focusing on gun deaths. I am focusing on violent crime and murder rates. Because I don't think a gun death is worse than someone getting bludgeoned to death with bats and hammers (or fists). Or run over by vehicles, killed by arson, poison, or bomb.

Firearm deaths are the #1 --- NUMBER ONE -- cause of death among American children. THAT'S why I'm focusing on gun deaths. We regulated automobiles for the same reason; we could tell that the use of automobiles was linked to a rising death rate among Americans. We didn't say "it'd be a shame to restrict the collarbones of law-abiding American drivers with seatbelts." We just enacted rules and laws to save lives, because we apparently valued the lives of American drivers.

Seems you don't value the lives of American children.

You are starting from a position of gun=bad and trying to justify it with numbers.

No, I'm starting from the position of seeing that guns are the #1 cause of death of children, and I'm starting from the position of being a father, and hating the idea of dead kids.

I'm just concerned with the amount of violence and murder. I'm looking at the most effective way to limit the frequency of violence and murder.

Yep, and right now, especially for children, that's gun control. And in terms of death by violent crime, a gun is the # 1 tool used. Any metric used to diagnose whether and how we should reduce violent crime is not serious unless it seriously addresses guns.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Right, we can't mention race, we can just engineer sneaky ways to create the racist effects of laws by hewing our laws to only penalize those who share common characteristics or forced behaviors along racial lines (see: black codes and vagrancy laws immediately following slavery).

And I am opposed to any of those black codes or vagrancy laws.

My solution to address these problems is increased access to education (preferably universal, through PhD), universal healthcare, and increased access to other social services for all people. Equally.

The 2nd Amendment was a compromise amendment that was staunchly supported and explicitly adhere to by white, southern, slaveowners who wanted to protect their "property" by keeping them in line. This isn't a disputed fact.

I'm not disputing that at all. I don't care what their intention was. The ability to discriminate like that should be eliminated as a possibility, by law

I don't think we have a good idea how many guns there are in Russia, much less the # of gun deaths. But comparing a democratic (for now) society like the U.S. with a totalitarian state isn't exactly the apples-to-apples comparison you think it is. Meanwhile, Australia, Western Europe, the U.K., Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and just about every other developed nation in the world has a fraction of the gun deaths we do. And that's directly due to the lax gun laws in America. Again, this isn't a controversial point.

So again, you're still talking about gun deaths like they are worse than any other kind of death.

I'm only interested in violent crime and murder rates. I don't care if it's a mass shooting, or a van running over a crowd of people. It's horrific. Horrifically the same.

Adam Lanza was a law-abiding gun owner. Stephen Paddock was a law-abiding citizen.

Adam lanza was a law-abiding citizen who should have never had access to guns (due to a serious mental condition). He stole those guns, which were locked in a secure safe, after he murdered his mother and stole the key from her.

Omar Mateen was granted a license in Florida to carry a firearm as a security guard.
Stop using the "further restrict law abiding citizens" canard to claim we can't prevent mass-murder. It's insulting to people of ordinary intelligence.

Concealed carry holders have the lowest violent crime and murder rates of any demographic in the United States.

Far lower than the police that you would call to help you in an emergency, who would show up 45 minutes after the murderer was finished with your body and had left.

Firearm deaths are the #1 --- NUMBER ONE -- cause of death among American children. THAT'S why I'm focusing on gun deaths.

Yes, that makes sense. Children are healthy. How else should they be dying? Would you be happier if they were dying from starvation? Disease?

Guns are dangerous, nobody is suggesting they aren't.

The solution to this problem is Universal education through PhD, Universal Healthcare, and greater access to social services, including eliminating homelessness.

We regulated automobiles for the same reason; we could tell that the use of automobiles was linked to a rising death rate among Americans.
We didn't say "it'd be a shame to restrict the collarbones of law-abiding American drivers with seatbelts." We just enacted rules and laws to save lives, because we apparently valued the lives of American drivers.

Seems you don't value the lives of American children.

We have gun laws in America. Once again, I have advocated for laws and solutions that would save children.

You are once again, falsely assigning a position to me that I don't take, in order to make some kind of judgment about me.

No, I'm starting from the position of seeing that guns are the #1 cause of death of children, and I'm starting from the position of being a father, and hating the idea of dead kids.

And I'm more than happy to discuss what laws those may be, and how effective they've shown to be.

Yep, and right now, especially for children, that's gun control. And in terms of death by violent crime, a gun is the # 1 tool used. Any metric used to diagnose whether and how we should reduce violent crime is not serious unless it seriously addresses guns.

What do you mean by seriously addresses guns? Eliminate them? Rather than making sweeping generalizations, maybe you could actually discuss a given policy?

Once again, I'm not opposed to gun laws.

But understand, you're probably going to have to trade something to get that law passed. is it going to be effective enough to make that trade worth it?

 

[CORipCity]

So again, you're still talking about gun deaths like they are worse than any other kind of death.

They are. They kill way more people than any other single tool.

I'm only interested in violent crime and murder rates. I don't care if it's a mass shooting, or a van running over a crowd of people. It's horrific. Horrifically the same.

Once again with the insanely dishonest arguments, as if you don't know full well that the tool-of-choice for all American murderers is guns, not vans. It's like the jackholes who claim China or the U.K. is just as dangerous because of knives. You can't murder someone from 50 yards away with a knife or a van.

Adam lanza was a law-abiding citizen who should have never had access to guns (due to a serious mental condition). He stole those guns, which were locked in a secure safe, after he murdered his mother and stole the key from her.

And yet he did.

Concealed carry holders have the lowest violent crime and murder rates of any demographic in the United States.

#1, this isn't true, and #2, if it were, it'd be one of the worst logical fallacies you've thrown out in this thread. Like claiming the #1 sufferers of sunburns aren't black people.

Far lower than the police that you would call to help you in an emergency, who would show up 45 minutes after the murderer was finished with your body and had left.

I don't need convincing that police are worthless. All the more reason to limit the means for people to shoot you and me and our kids while police aren't around.

Yes, that makes sense. Children are healthy. How else should they be dying? Would you be happier if they were dying from starvation? Disease?

It's very hard to not make bad-faith assumptions about you when you make statements like this. Only a bad-faith person would turn "guns are the #1 cause of death among kids" into some sort of positive statement about the lack of starvation of our nation's children.

Guns DID NOT USE TO BE the #1 cause of death among kids. They surpassed vehicles within the past decade. Why? Because we have half a billion fucking guns in this country, and we need fewer. We need massive gun buy backs, a massive gun-seizure wave, and strict background checks with actual teeth, including among private sales. We need a wholesale ban on civilian sale of assault weapons or magazines of more than 10 rounds. We should end the shield to liability for gun manufacturers.

If you want to fall back on the 2nd Amendment like it means dick-shit in today's society, then we should ban everything except what was in common usage in 1787. The current SCOTUS apparently loves to use the "tradition" argument with the Voting Rights Act, so perhaps that could pass muster? /s

We have gun laws in America. Once again, I have advocated for laws and solutions that would save children.

You are once again, falsely assigning a position to me that I don't take, in order to make some kind of judgment about me.


And I'm more than happy to discuss what laws those may be, and how effective they've shown to be.



What do you mean by seriously addresses guns? Eliminate them? Rather than making sweeping generalizations, maybe you could actually discuss a given policy?

Once again, I'm not opposed to gun laws.

But understand, you're probably going to have to trade something to get that law passed. is it going to be effective enough to make that trade worth it?

Sure, let's not pass stiffer gun laws, let's pass universal, free education through PhD, Universal Healthcare, greater access (whatever that means) to social services and elimination of homelessness. That's so much more realistic and more likely to pass than tougher gun laws.

Look, I agree with all those proposals. Make Head Start and preschool and college free. Healthcare (including mental health) for all!

But even with a supermajority in the Senate, the best we could pass in 2009 was a watered-down giveaway to health insurance companies that a republican-controlled Supreme Court promptly defanged. Universal healthcare is a pipe-dream that will never happen in a country whose citizens' and politicians' brains are pickled by either Fox News or CBS, or other bought-and-paid-for-billionaire messaging/lobbying machines.

We are both speaking about legal wish-lists that we both know will never, ever happen. The best pound-for-pound legislation we can pass right now to save young lives is gun legislation.

We can work on heart disease when we don't have Capt. Spasmodic Larynx screwing up HHS with his anti-vax garbage. But our love affair with guns needs to end. Now.

 

[riverman]

Imagine if there were other countries on planet earth with policies that could demonstrate what works and doesn’t work vis a vis gun violence (or anything else).

Guess we’ll never know!

I lived a couple of decades in Taiwan and it works there. You can't own a gun in their country and I felt safer for it. Welcome to the forum! I completely agree with you here. Unfortunately I don't see it changing in my lifetime.

 

[CORipCity]

I lived a couple of decades in Taiwan and it works there. You can't own a gun in their country and I felt safer for it. Welcome to the forum! I completely agree with you here. Unfortunately I don't see it changing in my lifetime.

Yes, certainly seems to work well in every other industrialized country. We're the only industrialized country that craves 1980s Nicaragua-style chaos. It may be that we loved Arnold and Sly too much in the 1980s.

And thanks, I wasn't expecting such a vibrant OT forum! I came here because I was at the game Friday night and wanted to cry with fellow Blazer fans.