Trump

[Usenko]

Mork, the change that really worked in Australia collected 1 million guns, which would scale up to 17 million in a country the size of the USA today.

Of course, the national arsenal at the time was about 6 million weapons, so a different way of calculating it was the removal of one gun in every 6. So for you, that'd be (after a few calculations) about 54,388,500 guns. Which is definitely a lot, but maybe not as big a logistical task as you thought.

Hope this helps.

[Masterbagger]

Well, if you only consider the weight, half a billion tons of metals is manageable quantities on industrial scale. It's a long process, but still doable.

On the social side, gun control still is the best way to prevent these shootings from going on. Implementing it will be daunting task for sure, but nobody said it would be done in a day. If gun control is ever implemented in the US, it will take many years before you see some degree of efficiency to the measures taken in place. (Too many guns already out there and too many people wants to keep them, even if they become illegal.) But it has to start at some point, or these massacres will keep going on forever.

Many people tend to say "there are flaws with your solution, so we must find something better or do nothing". Well often the imperfect solution is still the way to go, as it's still better than doing nothing. But it has to start at some point.

Still... the pessimist in me don't see this happening anytime soon in the US. The lobbies are too strong, and the population has too little control over what's going on at the national scale.

The purpose of gun control has never been to stop gun homicide. It has never tried to. No gun law proposed in the last decade would have stopped a mass shooter or the daily murder in our cities. The only way to realistically mitigate the next mass shooting is to assume the shooter is going to get inside and plan to get good guys with guns on scene as rapidly as possible. Everything that might have stopped this latest shooting failed. We have to learn from this. Another emotionally driven gun law is not going to stop the next shooter.

Or, removing "guns", of which there are probably 300,000,000 or more in the US is... doable? We don't have a trashcan big enough. If we averaged each gun to weigh just five pounds, counting the fact that there are plenty of rifles and shotguns of fairly heavy weight, we're talking about... One Billion, Five-Hundred-Thousand pounds of stuff to get rid of. If the weight was a little bit less, maybe we could do it? /sigh

It isn't the trash cans you need to worry about if you try it. You should be more concerned about the life expectancy of your garbage men.

[Usenko]

The purpose of gun control has never been to stop gun homicide. It has never tried to. No gun law proposed in the last decade would have stopped a mass shooter or the daily murder in our cities. The only way to realistically mitigate the next mass shooting is to assume the shooter is going to get inside and plan to get good guys with guns on scene as rapidly as possible. Everything that might have stopped this latest shooting failed. We have to learn from this. Another emotionally driven gun law is not going to stop the next shooter.

Wait, what?

Did someone hear a weird trumpeting noise?

Is there an elephant in this room?

The fact that . . if the shooter didn't have a gun, he couldn't have done this?

[mrbadger]

If teachers, even some teachers in the US were armed, there is another problem. They would be taking a loaded weapon into a room full of kids.

if in that room there was a kid who really wanted another kid dead, and the teacher had a gun right there, well then the possibility exists that they would try to get that gun.

It only has to happen once. Of course it wouldn't only happen once.

Then of course there is the problem that teachers sometimes crack. Only now they'd have a gun, they'd actually have permission to take a gun into school....

[Hank001]

There a digression from the topic and on to damage the topic is going ro cause my deciding to use this sad ouccurance as a "soap box" to stand upon the bodies and pontificate from a scipt written the National Rifle Association to the point his talking points even using the same buzz words and loaded rhetoric as the association's chairman delivering a speach at the same time. Both summing up to, "More guns, not less."

It's simply that the topic of this thread is is morally bereft enuogh to toss the entire teaching establishment into chaos to placate possibly the largest conributor to the conservative warchest. If Trump has a thought of his own it's stepping over the bodies to go in for his own ice cream, and that's $$$$ from the NRA and his own political capital.

[RegisterMe]

So apparently three quarters of the "civilian" firearms imported to the US each year come from Europe. Glock alone exported 1.3m handguns to the US in 2016.

Glock - Austrian
Beretta - Italian
Sig Sauer - Swiss / German
FN Herstal - Belgian
Heckler & Koch - German

Both Beretta and Glock have given substantial contributions to the NRA.

[Hank001]

America is "enamored" with imports?

[RegisterMe]

This guy actually makes me want to puke.

[Hank001]

His speech included all the buzz words favored my the luntic fringe elements like "The Deep State" mouthed by our neo-nazi groups just so he doesn't offend any of them setting out in the audience. CPAC is the one funding this trainwreck. Can't offend them you know. Just as Trump is jumping through hoops to not step on the toes of "his base", and if that means playing to the guy's tune, he'll do just that.
You don't want to offend the real people in power!

[BugMeister]

- I offend whoever..
- they're not fussy..

[Hank001]

It's became thec"American Way" to offend everyone especially ourselves. When it gets to the point where it's the choice between red uniforms or blue ones is when my address will change to Canada.

[BugMeister]

- not much to be gained by reducing the argument to a binary choice..
- the issue is far more complex than it appears at first glance..

[Hank001]

How true, however, that's exactly what it's boiling down to is in redux into binary components. It's getting to the point where voices of moderation are fewer and fewer while the stages are going to ones like the head of the NRA.
So your point is quite true, the problem is VASTLY complex, whowever it seems few wish to admit that when it's much easier to shake their finger at the other side and say, there's the problem. If the election turned out differently we'd no dout be here ragging on how Hillary was ruining everything.
Which I no doubt would be, since I didn't like that choice or her parties ideals any better than Trump's or his party's. Again my friend, we had only a binary decision.

[pjknibbs]

It's interesting that apparently some companies have withdrawn their support for the NRA after a lot of anti-NRA sentiment on social media and a call for a boycott...I don't remember that ever happening after a shooting before?

[Hank001]

It's past becomming a debate about guns rights and fell into the which social order you want to subscribe to. The leader of the NRA and Trump have thrown down the gauntlet and and as you'll see, the next few months are going to be "interesting times".

[Masterbagger]

Wait, what?

Did someone hear a weird trumpeting noise?

Is there an elephant in this room?

The fact that . . if the shooter didn't have a gun, he couldn't have done this?

What law would have stopped him? At this point the gun controllers just want to do something symbolic so they can feel better. They don't want a solution. They just want gun control.

[Morkonan]

To avoid a derail, I just want to sum up a reply concerning the whole "gun issue" and then move on.

We've banned assault weapons before. It had no effect. A total personal firearm ban will never happen. Further, this issue is a political "shiny thing" that politicians use to gain supporters and money. They have no interest in actually doing anything other than winning their position for bragging rights, even if their position is not a solution to any problem.

Every system put in place failed across the board. I don't mean just things to help identify possible "school shooters" but all those things we have put in place to help identify anyone who may be dangerous or to help those with mental or emotional problems. It's disgusting how many times people were warned, how many times agencies didn't or couldn't act, how many times it was evident this child was serious about their desire to kill with nobody responding, etc... For all those failures, we, perhaps, "got what we deserved" as a society.

IMO, there's a cultural and social issue here that has nothing to do with "guns." Nobody gives a darn... Parents and guardians don't give a darn as long as little Johnny isn't bothering them. Let "teh internetz" raise their children, they seem to be saying. Meanwhile, their kids dive into an echo-chamber that expresses little reasonable moral or ethical value.

We, or they, since I don't count myself among them, don't care to do anything because what needs to be done is "too hard." Caring for people, responding to other's needs, our society moving to help those with mental and emotional problems... All of these things and, yes, simple moral and ethical "values" are simply ignored by far too many people.

Why didn't kids storm their schools with weapons and shoot everyone in the '60s? 50's? 40's? 30's? The ability was there, but the "willingness to harm" others wasn't. Why? It certainly wasn't because of the introduction of a gun. There's something else going on and too many people don't want to admit it.

And there goes Gates - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43164325

This is a pretty big development. Gates is one of the closest people to the center of the spokes on the wheel of this investigation. He will now have to basically sit naked in front of all the investigators and "tell all." He'll also have to testify, if asked, and what he knows about everyone involved can't be understated - He was there, all over the place, and he's now a witness for the prosecution.

The one very big question about Gates and his plea deal

While an illuminating article, there's something that's even more important than "Trump" in all of this.

Trump Campaign aide Rick Gates pleads...

Notice that there are elected officials indicated as having received "bribes." There are further implications that there was a concerted effort, which one could call a "Conspiracy", to induce policy-makers to favor certain policies regarding Ukraine et al (Russia) and that many of these may have received dirty money...

Gates is now a witness for the prosecution and was intimately involved in all of this. He could "name names in court" of current and former elected officials involved in receiving "campaign contributions" or even direct bribes given to them in order to influence their opinion and, possibly, their vote on key issues.

If taken to its fullest extent, prosecuting this case could be the most effective "draining of the swamp" seen in modern times in the U.S. Gates's testimony could make this happen.

And, if the momentum is evident, Manafort would be wise to climb on board with a plea deal of his own, rather than sitting around and waiting, apparently, for Trump to give him a Presidential Pardon. (Some believe that his actions indicate he may be expecting a Pardon if things really get bad for him. But, nobody with any sense thinks Trump is going to pardon him. Then again, Trump isn't known with being very reserved in his actions. If he perceives a greater threat, he just might Pardon Manafort and then... the poop would hit the fan.)

To sum: The Gates plea cranks up the seriousness of this investigation to "almost eleven." It's not quite there, yet, but it's getting close to being "bigger than expected."

[Hank001]

Good job Morkonan! Though you know where this is going to lead just as much as my generation did when G. Gordon Liddy then H. R. Halderman were indicted. They'll implicate Trump, Trump will fire the special prosecutor. Since Trump is in the era of Clinton where a President can thumb his nose at impeachment, he'll bull through it, hand out pardons and see it as a plot to smear His Holiness The Donald. That is until the plot twist when someone in Moscow lets loose with what Putin has on him. Some Sparrow in a hotel room set up worse than the "Big Brother House". If this was a plotline of a book I'd pan it for being two dimensional and predictable.

[Morkonan]

Good job Morkonan! Though you know where this is going to lead just as much as my generation did when G. Gordon Liddy then H. R. Halderman were indicted. They'll implicate Trump, Trump will fire the special prosecutor. Since Trump is in the era of Clinton where a President can thumb his nose at impeachment, he'll bull through it, hand out pardons and see it as a plot to smear His Holiness The Donald. That is until the plot twist when someone in Moscow lets loose with what Putin has on him. Some Sparrow in a hotel room set up worse than the "Big Brother House". If this was a plotline of a book I'd pan it for being two dimensional and predictable.

More likely, the impetus to fire Mueller will start from within those Congresspeople who may have ties with the power-brokering that Gates and Manafort were part of. Trump may then seek to use this support to legitimize his firing of Mueller, claiming that he "can't remain deaf to the righteous outcry of respected representatives of The People...." or some such.

If any of that actually happens, of course. We could see a significant indictment before that moment which has serious implications for Trump and before he is able to pre-emptively strike. If that happens and there's a direct connection with all of this and Trump's campaign "on the books" in terms of an indictment for someone intimately involved with Trump, then all bets are off as to what will happen.

I'm starting to believe that if there is any connection with Trump's campaign and Russian efforts to undermine the election process, Trump isn't smart enough to have orchestrated it... If such a thing occurred, I think he would certainly have known and willingly participated, but it would have been organized and managed by much more intelligent people and he would have just been a willing puppet in the whole process.

[Chips]

We've banned assault weapons before. It had no effect. A total personal firearm ban will never happen.

Really? Do you mean the 10 year ban on new, but not existing weapons. Also the ban which had loopholes? And the one when it was lifted saw an uptick in shootings with assault weapons again?

Maybe have an actual ban, not an embargo on buying new models.

Why didn't kids storm their schools with weapons and shoot everyone in the '60s? 50's? 40's? 30's? The ability was there, but the "willingness to harm" others wasn't. Why? It certainly wasn't because of the introduction of a gun. There's something else going on and too many people don't want to admit it.

They did... just not with assault weapons. The number of shooting incidents in 30's - 70's are numerous, just perhaps not as lethal as today's incidents, but they did happen.

Here's one of my favourite series about US Gun Control. The reality is that a big section of your country just don't care what happens to other people. Simples. How can you ever have a rational discussion when the default stance of a large political part of the nation is "kill them before they kill others" - aka - arm people so they can "defend" themselves by killing. Faultless logic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA