>>>Charles,
>>>
>>>>>>Statistically, since the tragedy Friday over 100 people - including probably some cute kids, will be killed by drunk drivers. 2011 was considered a good year when the total dipped under 10,000 for the first time.
>>>>>
>>>>>I find it a bad taste and a very poor excuse to say that it is ok that the US won't do anything one the conditions of gun related crimes because there is another even greater problem. Every death that can be avoided is one too many and there should be put the effort into doing so.
>>>>>
>>>>>Besides that, in the US are arround 28.000, twentyeightthousand !!! gun related deaths EVERY YEAR. I can't see how on earth you can ignore that.
>>>>
>>>>Since I know your command of English is quite good I can only assume you are choosing to completely miss the point of what I wrote, which was to point out that media for selfish reasons chooses emotionally easy targets for massive coverage and manipulates a need for information on a particular subject. The death of Princess Diana was another example.
>>>
>>>To be honest, I think I DID miss your points.
>>>
>>>Anyway, that is how the media works. And whatever you might think of it, it allows us to get informed about things that are simply wrong in your, but also my society. Without the media, you and I would not have been informed about the dangers of the circumstances (not only guns, but as rightfully mentioned also the handling off mentally ill people) that made this possible.
>>>
>>>You'll have to ignore the politics, and to be honest, I did not see much politics from your government so far. Obama was very carefull in the media not to make this a party political issue. I'm more worried about 'Gun right' groups are going to play the 'party politics' card as an argument to block any further pragmatic discussions (you and I know, they will play that card anyways).
>>>
>>>The problem in this incidence is that it happened before, and each and every time the same voices are heard that something needs to be done about it. But in the end exactly zero has been done to prevent this from happening again. As Obama said: "We can't accept this to be routine." On contrary, How on earth can it be that the ban on Assualt rifles under Bill Clinton was reverted under Bush? Which nutcase was responsible for that? What, economic, social, secutiry or environmental importance does a (semi) automatic rifle have? And how does this weight against about one or two of these dramatic events each and every year, where young people lose their life because of the bullets out of such gun?
>>>
>>>Because in the end, that is what it is, you'll have to weight the economic, social, security and environmental value against the risks, the dangers. When you see that the value of guns is so small and cannot be compared to things like cars, it is unbelievable that people still insist to compare the deaths of gun related events with car crashes, drunk drivers and more of that kind of silly excuses.
>>>
>>>The only reason that gun control like implemented in most of europe has not been established in the VS, is because of exactly two points.
>>>
>>>A. The US is addicted to guns.
>>>B. Gun Rights special interest groups (like the NRA) have incredible power in your government.
>>>
>>>It has zero to do with pragmatics, rational thining. Its about the strongly embeddedness in the american culture. The fact that tenths of thousands of live are lost every year, you totally take for granted.
>>>
>>>> It is emotional pornography and emotional blackmail in that it labels those who do not grieve in the media approved fashion as being in favor of slaughtering children and is the same tactic used by our right wing nuts who would claim anyone who does not stand in the front yard waving a flag hates our country and is cheering for the terrorists.
>>>
>>>I agree up to an extend, however it does not take away that this is real and can happen to your family just as easy.
>>>
>>>>I never said or implied that nothing should be done about gun related crimes because of all the deaths due to drunk drivers.
>>>>But it is also worth pointing out that psychotic episodes in which a gun is the tool of destruction is a different social problem for crime where criminals acting from motives entirely different from mental illness are using guns to commit those crimes.
>>>
>>>Agreed, but the number of gun related deaths related to crimes is actually quite low compared to the unintentional gun related deaths.
>>>
>>>>Twisting my words to suit your own agenda or attempt at a moral high ground hardly adds gravitas to your arguments.
>>>
>>>I was not intending to twist your words. It was just a blind expression of my anger against (what I view) as plain stupidity. Perhaps from moral high ground, so be it.
>>
>>I really do understand the frustration and anger against the mindless insistence that any attempt to regulate the possession or sale of very very deadly weapons is an infringement on basic human rights. I believe gun ownership should be extremely selectively limited to those who have proven themselves to be otherwise responsible citizens, who are trained in their use and security and who are willing (and required) to take complete legal responsibility for every round fired.
>>
>>I also believe people should only be allowed to have children once they have passed a whole lot of threshold tests, especially regarding mental health and history of abuse or violence, since the most antisocial act most people ever commit is procreation and that the responsibility for those children and the legal sanctions against any abuse of the innocent should be a first priority for a civilized society ( and would solve about 90% of everything else )
>>
>>But I don't expect either of my wishes to come true.
>>
>>While it is possible to further control or at very least track the legal sale of firearms in the US the volume of guns available right now, if another one was never manufactured or imported, is still astonishing.
>>
>>So that brings us to confiscation, which would feed the very paranoid fantasies of the the gun nuts and would be ignored by criminals except that they would be drawn to add the gun business to their narcotics and other enterprises. It is not a practical solution.
>>
>> Politicians are not proposing solutions they are making noises to sound like they are doing something about the problem, which is more a product of misunderstanding and lack of willingness to treat mental illness, child abuse, poverty and a nihilistic culture among a permanent underclass.
>>
>> And the very same politicians who make the loudest noises about "doing something about gun violence" are often the least likely to support strong legal sanctions against violent criminals who use guns. And those who yell the loudest about how dangerous modern society has become are often the least likely to genuinely want to address things that really contribute to that danger.
>>
>>America and Europe have very different histories and I think that explains a lot of the cultural differences.
>>
>>Most of Europe has often gone through periods of rather strong state control and guns never proliferated the way they did here. Every wave of invaders, occupiers or ruling class bullies disarmed the local citizens as best they could. That may indeed have been the positive side - once the invaders, occupiers, etc were driven out by people who *did* have guns and the will to use them, of course :-)
>>
>> But we have a lot of them and no occupier has ever taken them away (well, they tried in Lexington and Concord but that didn't work out - the royal troops were trying to seize the armories, but of course the citizens had a lot of guns that weren't *in* the armories.
>>
>>All the talk in the world about "regulation" or "controlling" firearms is meaningless if there is not the willingness to make using a gun for bad purposes so unappealing that it might become less popular. We currently have some pretty impressive gun laws in many places but enforcement is, like the rest of law enforcement, lacking will and does not make any proper distinction between people committing offenses against property or moral regulations (drugs) and those who are really harming others and who are predators and abusers.
>>
>>But a man with a gun breaking in to a house has little to fear from the state compared to what he is prepared to do to the homeowner - unless, of course, the homeowner inflicts his own justice - in which case the legal risk in now on the homeowner ( though the phrase is popular "It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by six")
>>
>>Of course no one need (or should consider using) an AR 15 with a 30 round clip for home defense, or for that matter a pistol, unless one is very well trained with it. A shotgun is quite appropriate. Moving to a better neighborhood is an even better solution. I don't fear people with legal concealed carried permits but though I've always had one I've never carried a firearm outside my home unless it was required by my job.
>>
>>Very few people in this country need a gun or know what to do with one. Some who don't need them still feel better having them and at least are sane people who know how - and when - to use them, so they are not the problem.
>>
>>But there are lot of people who have them who shouldn't and it is too easy for them to get away with using them for illegal purposes. Anyone who can't buy one legally can pretty quickly find one for cash without the paperwork. If someone want to round up all those people and drop them in the ocean ( or any more enlightened society across the ocean <g> ) I'm all for it.
>>
>>There are also some folks who have guns,don't think about them much or sexually fetishize them, but know how to use them for their proper purposes. They would be damn glad if they were the only ones who had them
>>
>>If it were possible to make all the guns in this country disappear ... except mine ... well, ok ;-)
>>
>>But I'm just a cranky old man who would be willing to outlaw hunting animals if they would declare open season on criminal predators and child abusers.
>
>One thing I heard someone say years ago is that one of the reasons the USA hasn't ever been invaded since we won our independence is because everyone knows that all the citizens have guns and will use them.

Selectively forgot 911 I guess. Was that someone mentally ill perhaps? What did they do with him? Never heard such nonsense. Its isolation from foes by two oceans is about the only reason.