<p>I don’t get the point. There shouldn’t be more gun control just because there are also bad people with knives and machetes? There shouldn’t be laws because the bad people don’t always follow them?</p>
<p>Having grown up with “red state bubbas,” I would opine that nothing, and I mean nothing, gets a bubba to hold onto his gun more tightly than sneering liberals from northern states who claim moral and intellectual superiority based on their disdain for guns. Personally, I try to not take sides on the issue as I am aware of the lower homicide rates elsewhere where guns are banned, but I also can see where the bubbas are coming from (they don’t trust people in power who look down on them). What concerns me most are the politicians who demagogue the issue as they try to win reelection by promising the “common folk” gun rights instead of rights to health care, education, and basic infrastructure.</p>
<p>"Having grown up with “red state bubbas,” I would opine that nothing, and I mean nothing, gets a bubba to hold onto his gun more tightly than sneering liberals from northern states who claim moral and intellectual superiority based on their disdain for guns. "</p>
<p>Yep. I’m sure that’s the case. (Seriously - no snark.) I wonder why they think their way of life is so superior when it’s smack-dab in the middle of the most uneducated parts of this country? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because it is not only an oversimplistic approach, but counterproductive as gun owners are not one monolithic group. In fact, many of them do want background checks and regulations which lobbyist groups like the NRA oppose. Unfortunately, they are caught in the middle between lobbyists who oppose greater checks and regulations and those who stereotype them negatively by association. </p>
<p>In fact, one of the greatest facilitators of such lobbyists is the meme of the “Northern elitist snob”…and the NRA and sympathetic lobbyists/politicians use it to great effect. </p>
<p>Yes, it’s true. The only bigotry acceptable in this country is against white rural folks. People who never get out of the city need to go to the Ozarks, West Virginia, the rural West. You may be surprised to find friendly, educated people there. </p>
<p>These prejudices remind me of a girl from Portland who went with us on a trip to the Ozarks. She sneered at the people there and said she was ‘afraid’ of these uneducated hillbillies, who were working the resorts, cleaning the rivers of snags and camping out. She was unaware of the irony that this opinion was being offered by a Portland slacker who had no job, only a few community college classes and no prospects for the future. But she was from Portland, so somehow she was superior. Boggles the mind.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is really sad, I feel for you. It is the same way here, and I think it is ridiculous.</p>
<p>Those who think guns ‘cause’ gun deaths as opposed to just being a tool used by someone whose goal is to kill, not particularly to use a certain tool, think these controls worth considering. Those who don’t think guns cause gun crimes any more than cars cause vehicular homicide or pressure cookers ran off on their own at the Boston Marathon don’t think so. And calling those who disagree with you names doesn’t make the arguments more persuasive, typically, to those who think differently than you do.</p>
<p>Further, the gun control reforms, as opposed to say, suggesting different procedures and questions to ask if there is a wellness check, would not have changed the situation we are discussing. ER did not buy his guns at a gun show. He was not ON any mental health registry. This is precisely what I mean about trying to jump on someone’s tragedy to push a personal pet agenda. It doesn’t even fit here. If anything, it shows how little those kind of regulations work, since California has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, yet here we have a shooting. </p>
<p>But the reason no one is convincing anyone else here is that some think guns cause gun crime, and others don’t. That there are fewer shootings in Europe isn’t persuasive since Europe is different from us on any number of fronts. As I understand it, in Switzerland every able bodied adult is REQUIRED to have a fully automatic weapon, and they will constitute the army, should Switzerland need one. Gun crime rates there are very low. It isn’t guns that cause crime.</p>
<p>To say that because guns were used, banning guns would have stopped the crime just makes no sense to those who see no logic in that, and no matter how many statistics of gun crime exist, without that causal element, the disagreement will remain.</p>
<p>The Saab driver in 2001 and ER were both directors’ sons. Maybe we could just ban directors’ sons from college towns. Or maybe just from Isla Vista. That at least would be relevant to this particular situation. And might give me a little warped satisfaction, since I personally don’t have any affinity for directors’ sons, so it would be at no cost to me. It would have been much more effective than banning guns, given the SAAB, machetes and hammer details.</p>
<p>“In fact, one of the greatest facilitators of such lobbyists is the meme of the “Northern elitist snob”…and the NRA and sympathetic lobbyists/politicians use it to great effect.”</p>
<p>Oh, see, I have no shame about being a “Northern elitist snob.” (Am I supposed to?) Why is elite more of a dirty word than uneducated?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In that respect, they’re fulfilling the Second Amendment a lot better than we do in practice here in the states. </p>
<p>Every able-bodied Swiss adult is required to have a fully automatic weapon precisely because they are members of the Swiss armed forces with the requisite periodic training and weapon and ammunition checks. </p>
<p>Including checks to see boxes of ammunition earmarked for mobilization stored in homes is stored properly and frequent inspections to see the seals haven’t been opened and ammunition diverted to other uses. </p>
<p>Any ammunition used in military exercises or target practice is also likely to be tightly controlled and in the latter case…every round issued needs to be accounted for at the end. </p>
<p>My father recounted when his platoon was on the firing range, every soldier…himself included needed to bring back every spent casing and unused rounds back to the range armory. Any losses of rounds compared with what was signed out for would result in a serious military investigation and discipline for the soldier(s) involved and their NCOs/CO. </p>
<p>From what I heard from the veterans in my old neighborhood, they had similar stringent checks to ensure weapons and ammunition weren’t misused outside authorized military exercises when not in combat. </p>
<p>Pizzagirl: wow…I guess all those redneck, toothless, banjo playing, canoe carving, tractor driving red state uneducated bigots have not yet realized your superiority. But how lucky they are (even in their oblivion) to have you to tie their shoes. (which of course have holes in the soles)</p>
<p>Such and advertisement for the LAC education I have not often seen.</p>
<p>Pizza, I don’t like guns either but you and I cannot expect to reach a meeting of the minds with Second Amendment diehards if we demean the sensible and law-abiding gun-owners. In my opinion, the NRA can only change from within. Yes, some of the rabble that claim NRA membership will never change and will always be little different from the shallow politicians who pander for their support (like Charlton Heston with that ‘my cold dead hands’ nonsense). But there have got to be other gun owners out there, urban and rural alike, who are upset and saddened by these recurring tragic events. Let’s hear their word rather than marginalize and their opinions. If the NRA has an idea about enacting better mental health laws, I want to hear about it.</p>
<p>" Pizzagirl: wow…I guess all those redneck, toothless, banjo playing, canoe carving, tractor driving red state uneducated bigots have not yet realized your superiority. But how lucky they are (even in their oblivion) to have you to tie their shoes. (which of course have holes in the soles)</p>
<p>Such and advertisement for the LAC education I have not often seen."</p>
<p>I didn’t go to an LAC. What are you talking about?</p>
<p>I don’t see the need to malign people’s geographic origins to make the point that ignorant people with rigid views on firearms rights are part of the reason we can’t have real dialogue on guns in this country. It’s not a “red state” or “blue state” thing, as others have pointed out. In many cases it is urban vs. rural or liberal vs. conservative, but not always. Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Connecticut, Washington and many other blue states have more than their share of people who insist on unfettered access to all the weapons they can get their hands on. A lot of these people are simply hunters or country dwellers who feel safer with guns as protection. A few are certified whack jobs. Most are worried about a slippery slope that starts with banning assault rifles and ends with a gun-free society. Even though they have no real reason to fear that, they do.</p>
<p>TatinG, I live among snobs like that. They will not set foot below the Mason-Dixon line. They are more provincial, by far, than any of the “hillbillies” they claim to be superior to.</p>
<p>@cobrat, actually, they are required to keep them, with ammo, in their homes in case of emergency need. My point is that Europe is different because Europe is different, not because they have no guns.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I said as much in my previous comment. </p>
<p>However, the ammo stored at home for emergency need is sealed with a sign saying something like “Only to be open in case of mobilization” and frequent inspections by military authorities are conducted in each home to ensure those seals haven’t been tampered with. I recalled seeing a picture of a sealed box of ammunition with such a sign which was translated by the article. </p>
<p>@cobrat, and that sign would stop someone bound on a killing spree? Killing is already illegal, and access is the point that people who think lack of guns will end killing are making. Access in Switzerland clearly is there. Granted they might only get away with it once, but how many people do multiple mass shootings?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m open to dialogue, but don’t see a lot of it. For instance, there seems to be agreement that the mentally ill ought not be allowed to purchase guns, and most people seem to think that they aren’t permitted to own guns. But if you read the laws, that isn’t true. I don’t think people are aware of this. If they were, they wouldn’t like it, but its not going to be reported because it doesn’t suggest the solution that people who want second amendment repeal would support. </p>
<p>Full-blown, diagnosed paranoid schizophrenics can walk in and buy whatever guns they like, nearly everywhere, as far as I can tell. The only thing that stops them is if they have been institutionalized or hospitalized, or if they have threatened someone specific.</p>
<p>Figuring out a solution to that would be a starting point. And even rednecks can name some people that shouldn’t be gun owners. </p>
<p>No, there’s no agreement on that, dadx. Something about discrimination against the mentally ill was discussed a few pages back on this thread. The NRA is fine with it as far as I can tell. Others are taking the all or nothing approach which seems to mean nothing. </p>
<p>I’d agree with that in principle. But the devil would be in the details. Would all physicians, therapists and social workers have to turn over the names of those diagnosed with mental illness to the feds? (I can see privacy advocates getting very upset at that). What kinds of mental illness? Depression? Bipolar? Anxiety? Obsessive-compulsive? It’s all a thorny issue.</p>
<p>According to wikipedia:</p>
<p><a href=“Firearms regulation in Switzerland - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland</a></p>
<p>It seems ammunition stored in the home was limited to 50 rifle rounds and 48 pistol rounds, sealed, and subject to frequent inspections to ensure the seals weren’t broken absent mobilization. </p>
<p>And that was repealed by the Swiss government a few years ago as they recalled the vast majority of that ammunition and ceased allowing issuance or storage of ammunition in the home for most militia members unless one is in a tiny number of certain specialized units. </p>
<p>Also, once one is released from militia service at 30 for enlisted and 34 for officers, you do need a license to keep firearms afterwards. </p>
<p>Even when one purchases ammunition to be used in firing ranges, any ammunition purchased at the range must be used there. Can’t take any of it home. </p>
<p>Right Tatin, the devil is always in the details. The Rodgers family has expressed support. But, it wouldn’t have stopped ER, either.</p>