Sandy Hook Elementary School Victims Relief Fund

That sounds like a cultivated aspirational list, not a more realistic list.

While as a country we are wealthier than anyone else, unfortunately our wealth distribution is more similar to certain unsavory corrupt countries than to other 'advanced democracies'.

The inequality has varied and cycled over time, and is increasing now.

I believe our current poverty rates and income inequality are most linked to (1) unbridled capitalism (also the source of our worlds-most-costly healthcare system that doesn't produce leading health results), and (2) history of slavery and Jim Crow, with continuing institutional racism.

Gun ownership has different roots, linking back even to our mother country.

There are some recent claims are that our gun ownership derives primarily from our past slave and continued racist cultures. While those claims do contain elements of truth (yes, slave owners did use guns as part of their toolbox to control slaves, and freed Blacks were commonly prohibited from gun ownership, and after Abolition, racist oppressors did use guns to terrorize Blacks and keep them subjugated and vote-less), I find it absurd that it would be a primary reason outside the Confederate region. It doesn't explain the non-slave regions well at all.

Whoa Nellie! I did not specify 'gun' violence here, because the associations are to all violence. Poverty is equally linked to non-gun violence.

Note that if gun ownership was the primary driver of violence, then Blacks would have a significantly lower rate of violence than whites, i.e. roughly one-third lower now, probably more so a generation ago. But reality is that Blacks are murdered at about 8 times the rate of whites.

After setting aside the obvious racist excuses blaming genetics, that leaves the relative poverty, income inequality, and socioeconomic disadvantages that are also linked to violence in places where American-style racial conflicts, and guns, are absent. And in poor white American communities too.

I must take that as 'not answered to your satisfaction', and I don't believe that can change, so see no point in following that line.

It isn't a typo. Our civil rights are expressed in or derived from various parts of that constitution.

I don't remember seeing any poll result favoring repeal of that constitutional/civil right.

Tighter restrictions are a different issue, and carry various degrees of support. When pollsters ask generic questions, they can find high support. Interest groups almost universally use careful wordsmithing to maximize support for their cause. The common major polling firms are less guilty, but not exactly innocent. Every time more specific details are added, gun control support drops. When actual legislation is drafted with concrete details, support often drops even more.

Then there are great differences in voter enthusiasm. Most people generically supporting gun control in public opinion polls, don't rate it high when choosing who to vote for. But very many people opposing increased gun controls, do rate it highly when voting. That is how supposedly 'winning' issues in opinion polls can easily be 'losing' issues at the ballot box.

A generic illustration heard very long ago: suppose 80% of people support a measure but only 5% of those care strongly enough to make it a voting criteria, while 20% of people oppose the measure and 80% of those make it a voting criteria. The result: 4% of voters swing for supporting candidates, while 16% swing against, making it a losing issue by a net 12% at the ballot box.

See also 1994 Midterm Election.

Abortion follows a somewhat similar path, which is how we are getting increasingly restrictive and prohibitive abortion laws in spite of very clear majority support in favor of legal abortion.

 

I'm curious how the gun haters will defend themselves from an attacker. here are three scenarios.

1) armed attack at gas pump/store

2) armed home burglary, middle of the night/day , and your family is home

3) armed car jacking

armed= gun/knife/machete/club/etc bad thing

 

Sorry for the delay here: I've been very busy at work, and then travelling. I'm in Broken Hill just now, which is lovely.

Yes, that's what I mean. I think people in the rest of the world - myself included - make the lazy assumption that America is like other wealthy countries, when perhaps it's not.

I see your arguments here. I do see a relationship certainly between healthcare and guns, and possibly with slavery, and with other aspects of unbridled capitalism. They all seem to link to what could generously be called a "frontier spirit" or "individualism", which seem to be a mistrust of society and an idea that it is every man for himself.

Indeed. But lots of it is gun violence.

True. But then we go back to what we discussed earlier - that there's more violence, which much of the difference accounted for by guns, in the impoverished parts places like the US and parts of Latin America than we'd see in Europe, East Asia (except the Philippines and Australasia), and that there's greater inequality in those US/LatAm places than in the other places. Hmmm.... I don't know the answer.

Fair enough.

OK. That's a very different definition of civil rights to that we use in other countries. Thanks for the clarification.

Yes, I think you may be right.

 

A few things here.

i. The attacker in Australia would almost certainly not have a gun.
ii. In the rare event that the attacker did have a gun, we know the gas store owner will claim for the robbery on insurance. It's not worth dying - or killing - to protect the profits of an insurance company.
iii. We know that if we were to have a gun and if we were to pull it, we'd be more likely to escalate the situation, and that we would be more likely to die than if we didn't.

The key thing we've done outside of the US is make sure that baddies don't have guns. This was a clever way of preventing a situation where an attacker has a gun and the homeowner doesn't.

See 1.

I mean, we won't get into the vanishingly small proportion of "good guy with a gun" killings here, because it would make your argument look absurd. But really, what we've done is avoid creating a situation in which your three scenarios are likely to happen at all, and we've made the likelihood of those scenarios being potentially lethal almost non-existent.

But if you want to live with the delusion that you are somehow protecting your family, you go ahead.

 

I see you completely ignored the part about BEING ATTACKED in all three scenarios.

i also see you omitted the part where the bad guy has things to attack you with that were not guns.

that was clever, except I caught it. you can fool yourself, but you're not fooling me.... you have no way of defending yourself in those situations. you are at your attackers mercy.

good luck buttercup !

 

... crickets ....

 

... patience ...

 

Everyone (myself included) invokes crickets to suggest that nothing is happening. Au contraire. Scrapey chirpy sounds mean that no predator has been detected nearby. Nocturnal ecology is no less fascinating because humans lack most sensory equipment to observe it.

Cricket the game, however, is truly a situation where nothing is happening. So I suggest that for this metaphor, we drop the final letter s.

 

Wow. That was rude.

I have a few other things to do that take priority over you, but your post is important to me and I will be with you as soon as possible.

Please hold.

 

I think it's mostly an Americanism.

Between the frogs and the cicadas in our garden at the moment, I can barely hear the TV some nights.

Try growing up in England and later living in Australia.

I suppose, given that history, I should like cricket. But I think I have inherited the Scottish attitude to cricket from my parents, which is that it is the worst game on the planet.

My god it's dull.

It's "The Ashes" at the moment. It's a competition between England and Australia that happens every 18 months, in Australian and English summers alternately. It's on in Australia at the moment.

It's a series of five "test matches". I think they are called test matches because they test your patience. They're FIVE DAYS LONG. Each one! And there's five of them! And nothing happens, except for the occasional sexting scandal that causes players to resign in disgrace. But still, the sports section of the news goes on about it interminably, not just during the 25 DAYS of the five games, but the lead up to each game, and then its aftermath.

Honestly, it bores me to tears. And yet loads of English and Australian people are absolutely obsessed with it.

 

Thank you. I quite agree.

 

Right.

Sigh.

A few things here.

You are being unnecessarily rude and impatient

Between your statement (not a question) at #85 and your complaint that I hadn't responded at #86, there was a gap of 27 hours and 9 minutes.

Your response at #51 to my post at #28 took two days. I didn't complain about your tardiness. I know I am not entitled to an answer, and if I do get one, I know I am not entitled to specify its timing. Somehow, you seem to think that this is not how an Internet forum works.

Even after those two days, you didn't manage a response in full sentences. You said, hilariously:

the reason those people you keep knocking down are important (and you ar

now that i realize you consider everyone elses opinion as "stupid" per your above response, i understand

why you're bumping into important people

instead of being one.
​

I've left all punctuation and line spacing in place.

Not worth a two-day wait, was it? But I did not complain. Because I am patient and kind.

You then went on to leave a gap of 11 days between posts. And yet you complained when I didn't respond to you in 27 hours and 9 minutes. I think you were somehow trying to claim victory because my failure to respond instantly somehow proved that you had me stumped.

This rudeness and impatience - this impetuousness - worries me

You talk about how you should be entitled to have a gun. And yet your behaviour suggests to me that you're precisely the sort of person who couldn't be trusted with one. Impatience, aggression, inattention to detail, an inability to carry through a thought and act on it rationally (see the red quote above)..... It's an "accident" waiting to happen, isn't it?

Ah, well. Land Of The Free.

I do not have to explain myself to you, but I shall nonetheless, because I am nice.

You posted on Tuesday US time (Wednesday my time), and then delightedly pointed out my failure to answer on Wednesday US time (Thursday my time).

On Wednesday, I drove with my daughter from Broken Hill to Hay, a distance of 583km. Much of this was through outback areas with no cellular coverage. On Thursday, we drove from Hay to Sydney, another 719km. Posting on Priuschat, much as I like it, wasn't my priority while I was driving. When we did have a signal, I could have browsed the Internet and responded to you while she drove. But she's 10. So I thought that would be nearly as dangerous as us having a gun.

Had posting on Priuschat been something I had time and energy for on Wednesday and Thursday, I'd have responded to the interesting posts from Trollbait, bisco, bwilson4web and others on the diapers page - something I did earlier today - as these were more interesting, more informative, and better-written than your pointless asked-answered-shouted-a-statement post at #85.

Note that I responded to tochatihu's interjection about cricket before I bothered to respond to you, other than asking you to please hold. It was a more interesting, more relevant post. And he hadn't rudely demanded a response.

Post #85 wasn't a question

I have referred to this above.

Priorities again

I tend to post on Priuschat - even for the interesting conversations - when I'm working. My job is extremely difficult and requires a lot of thought. Posting to chat to friendly people, or occasionally arguing with people with whom I disagree - is a good way to refocus my mind.

On Wednesday and Thursday I was on holiday. Even if I hadn't been driving, I probably wouldn't have posted.​

----------

I trust that this explains the delays to your satisfaction. I am, of course, here to serve.

 

Well, no. I said the attacker wouldn't have gun.

But here we go.

If I were physically attacked, I would work to minimise the harm to myself and others.

What I wouldn't do includes the following:

• Say, "Oh, sorry, attacker. Can you just give me a minute? As a responsible gun owner, I keep my gun in a safe place where it cannot be found by my children, and keep my ammunition separate from it. Can you just let me go and get my gun, and load it? And then I'll threaten you with it. When I do, given that you're a criminal and stuff, please don't take my gun from me and shoot me with it. So when I threaten you with, please either run away, or attack me slowly so I can shoot you."
  
• Have my gun close to hand, in a place where my children could already have accessed it and accidentally killed themselves or someone else with it at some point in the past or future, just in case someone happened to come into my house with the aim of harming me, rather than just stealing stuff for which I'd claim on insurance.

You don't seem to understand that, in the scenarios you outline, the criminal is generally out to make a profit. The circumstances i which they come in with the specific aim of killing or injuring people are vanishingly rare. In Australia, with its population of 23 million, this happens two or three times a year if we exclude gang-on-gang violence (which will never happen to me as I am not cool enough to be in a gang, and tattoos look painful).

If you are a member of a gang involved in a violent feud, then I accept that a gun would be useful.

No. See above. A gun would be of little or no use in this scenario too.

One major change that gun ownership would make here is that the attacker who came in without a gun would very likely be able to conveniently avail himself of my gun, either by getting to it before me, or taking it from me (given that he's a criminal and knows what he's doing, and he's more prepared than me for the situation as he knew he was coming into my house and I didn't), putting me in a significantly more dangerous situation.

No, it really wasn't. Honestly, if you think that was clever, I despair.

Truly you are a master of mental gymnastics.

I would be in a situation that was marginally less dangerous than if there were a gun in my house - see above - and significantly less dangerous than if I were in a place where the criminal had easy access to guns.

Look, I hate to break it to you on Christmas Eve (my time) of all days, but popular Christmas-set documentary "Die Hard" and equally-popular Christmas-set documentary "Die Hard 2: Die Harder" contain certain factual errors.

In real life, it is vanishingly rare that the mythical "good guy with a gun" manages to outwit, outplay and outlast the baddies, save the day and get the girl.

You are not John McClane.

Here's a thing, from Breaking down the NRA-backed theory that a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun - ABC News

Unarmed ‘good guys’ doing more than armed ‘good guys’
The FBI has also compiled some of its own numbers breaking down what role "good guys" have played in active shooter incidents. In a 2014 report, the FBI examined 160 active shooter incidents that took place between 2000 and 2013.

The report found that in five of those incidents, armed individuals who were not members of law enforcement exchanged gunfire with the shooter, leading to either the shooter being killed, wounded or taking his own life.

Congress returns to DC amid growing call for action on gun violence
Criticism for ex-deputy who didn't engage school gunman 'unfounded,' lawyer says
By contrast, 21 of the 160 incidents ended after unarmed citizens “safely and successfully restrained the shooter,” the report stated.

“Most of the time, if you’re talking about a civilian stopping a mass shooter, it’s the unarmed guy without the gun because they're right there,” Donohue said.

Recent mass shooting incidents
There is a growing number of mass shooting incidents that occurred after the release of the FBI’s 2014 report where a so-called good guy with a gun was on the scene but did not stop the shooting or shooter.

One high-profile recent example is the armed school resource officer at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School who did not enter the building or engage the shooter. Fourteen students and three adult staffers were gunned down.

Five people were killed at the January 2017 shooting in the baggage claim portion of the Fort Lauderdale airport, where there are regularly armed police officers.

Las Vegas casinos are known to have regularly armed police officers and there were off-duty law enforcement officers at the Route 91 Harvest Festival but the shooter who fired at the concertgoers was able to fire shots for roughly 10 minutes before the shooter’s room was breached by police officers.

In November 2017, a so-called "good guy" did respond to the shooting that unfolded at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, but not until after the suspect had left the scene and already killed 26 people inside the church.

“It’s not very often that somebody with a gun who’s a private citizen plays a useful role in ending these mass shooting events,” Donohue said.​

And a couple of others:

https://giffords.org/blog/2020/10/the-good-guy-with-a-gun-myth/
How the ‘good guy with a gun’ became a deadly American fantasy | PBS NewsHour

There's so much of this.

It's a bizarre myth that seems to have sprung up. Ultimately, though, your ownership of a gun will almost certainly not protect you; and widespread gun ownership puts you and your family at far greater risks.

-----

Now, really, I hope this is all to your satisfaction. But I suspect it won't be.

Now I have to go and have lunch, and then go to the supermarket to buy the food I'm cooking for my extended family tomorrow. And tonight, if I have been a good boy this year (I have!), Santa will be coming and I will be doing Christmas stuff. This will take priority over Priuschat.

So if you reply to this - no matter how angry, ill-thought-out and poorly-punctuated your reply might be - if I don't respond to you immediately, please post an angry reminder within 27 hours and 10 minutes and I will do my best to reply within the week. I will reply to other people with better posts first, though.

 

.... cricket(s) ....

I mean, that's been 43 minutes! What is @privilege doing?

 

Perhaps still reading?

 

tldr version:

you can't defend yourself or your family in any of those three situations... ok, got it.

I see a lot of deflection in your post.

why is it so hard to admit that you cannot defend yourself and family ?

 

since I live in the USA, I have the right (and my wife/children, too ! ) to defend myself and my family, up to and including using firearms to do so.

this screenshot shows why I chose those three scenarios for defense of myself and my family. this is why I asked how you would defend yourself in those scenarios:


if you would like to discuss defending yourself and your family in common scenarios in your country (or mine), that's fine. I'm interested in learning.

if you prefer to wave the "OMG mass shootings, gotta ban the guns" flag, I'll just chuckle and walk away from the narrative.

 

When seconds count….911 “can” respond as quickly as a few minutes.

 

a few years ago, the local police were chasing a Cadillac driven by a drunk, on an interstate highway. they either gave up because of safety/speed concerns, or he lost the popo, I don't know.

as we finished supper, we turned on YouTube to watch the latest of Andrew Camaratas videos, and were interrupted by loud noises. at first I thought my neighbor had backed his trailer into the garbage cans and I chuckled. then it got much louder and closer, and ended with a huge WHAM/CRUNCH, right outside the living room window.

I pulled back the curtain to see the disoriented driver and passenger spill out of the destroyed car, and walk around in circles yelling.

the family was sent to a safe place in the home, armed, and 911 was dialed, all at the same time.

FOURTEEN MINUTES LATER, the first popo cruiser arrived. we are 1.25 mile from the closest police station. dispatch sent them to the wrong address, one street over. when I asked about "don't they use GPS to determine location info nowadays?" he shrugged and said "I do not know man, they look that up in the att records if the da thinks there's a murderer or something"... after all of this, I checked my phone's location settings and saw that ELS (emergency location services) was turned on, and should have sent my location to the dispatcher. then I looked up my local PD and found that yes, indeed, they have this capability.....

wooooo!, I realized that 'sloppy and inconsistent' were good descriptors of the process/procedures.

the drunk driver was a convicted felon, and only caught because he walked into a domino's looking for a phone charger, covered in blood, glass and mud from the creek he exited the property through. not the normal type of person for the property taxes in our area (stupid high taxes). if he had kept going to the highway, he would have escaped competely.

tl;dr
the police lost/dropped a drunk driver, who then hit 17 mailboxes, trees, and completely tore down 3 different yards chain link fences, slammed into my neighbors house, and after calling 911 took 14 minutes to arrive from a 1.25 mile drive.


this incident changed my opinion about response times and the level of "care" that govt services have for protection.


another event:
when the burn loot murder groups were being allowed to set things on fire without police intervention, I bought more protective devices. three of their members got off track from the "peaceful protesting" and we're breaking into cars in our neighborhood. on that 911 call, my neighbor watched as they attempted to break in to 6 different cars, and the response time was 15+ minutes for the popo. they were armed, they got away.

I have no issue with others choosing to be disarmed, that's fine. for myself, I'll prefer any/every possible defense method, to keep my family safe.