http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/12/16/kristof-on-gun-control Comments On: Kristof on Gun Control by Bethany Jean Clement en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:15:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by aureolaborealis]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:48:07 -0800 The Stranger Posted by diggum]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:36:39 -0800 The Stranger You should learn to read verb tenses before you start accusing people of lying.
So you fail at English.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:08:42 -0800 The Stranger
Actually you are the liar (or you are ignorant). Gun laws in Switzerland have recently changed.

From what you yourself posted from Wikipedia (guess you didn't read it all):

"Prior to 2007 members of the Swiss Militia were supplied with 50 rounds of ammunition for their military weapon in a sealed ammo box that was regularly audited by the government. This was so that, in the case of an emergency, the militia could respond quickly. However, since 2007 this practice has been discontinued. Only 2,000 specialist militia members (who protect airports and other sites of particular sensitivity) are permitted to keep their military ammunition at home. The rest of the militia can only get their ammunition from their military armory in the event of an emergency.[9]"

"The rules laid out above were changed on 1 December 2008 as Switzerland joined the Schengen treaty; and all member countries must adapt some of their laws to a common standard. Following the draft of the Swiss government for the new Waffengesetz (weapons law), these points will change:

Unlawful possession of guns will be punished.

Gun trade among individuals will require a valid weapon acquisition permit. Weapons acquired from an individual in the last ten years (which did not require a weapon acquisition permit) have to be registered. As a central weapons register was politically unfeasible, the authorities hope to get an overview of the market through this registration requirement.

Every gun must be marked with a registered serial number."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politic…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk…

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-gun-control-de…
Posted by passionate_jus]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:14:57 -0800 The Stranger "A single specific suggestion for a law which would prevent this from happening again: outlaw all types of guns in the US, with several penalties, both $$ and time in prison."

So would police carry guns as they do now?
Just making sure that you're specific on this.
I'm guessing that you'd still want the military to have guns.
How about non-police security guards? Guns or no guns?

So you want to take away the guns from the 99% of the population that have never committed a crime with a gun.

"To NOT make the law and say 'It wouldn't work' is craven."

Look up Prohibition.
Stating that a law will not work is often as simple as understanding basic human nature.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:04:38 -0800 The Stranger
Before you say the standard crap of "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws would have guns", these mass shootings aren't done by criminals.

I have no doubt that if this guy's mother knew that guns were illegal and she'd face huge penalties for possessing them, she wouldn't have them. I have no doubt that if gun show proprietors and gun shop owners knew what they'd face, they find another business.

Most people obey the law. But you have to make the law first. To NOT make the law and say "It wouldn't work" is craven.
Posted by sarah70]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:29:03 -0800 The Stranger
So let's say that guns like that were not legally available. Would it prevent everyone from getting them? No. Would it prevent this guy's problems from erupting into violence? No. Would it have meant that when he went into his mom's gun cabinet to act on his rage, there would be a gun with a smaller magazine that would've meant it took him longer to kill as many kids, leaving more time for police to show up, more time for doors to be locked, ultimately prevented some of these deaths? Yes.

I don't know why the standard of "preventing" a tragedy is the only measure that would spur you into supporting a law, since laws really aren't capable of preventing anything. But it's enough for most people. You'll see.
Posted by Ziggity]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:14:58 -0800 The Stranger "Figures a guy who wants just anyone to be able to buy a any gun would believe information he got from just anyone."

The facts are the facts.
You can choose to be uninformed.
You can choose to lie.
All you have are insults.

And you cannot post a single specific suggestion for a law or laws that would have prevented this specific incident.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:04:59 -0800 The Stranger
Ah! Wikipedia? "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? That's their motto, right? Figures a guy who wants just anyone to be able to buy a any gun would believe information he got from just anyone.

What country are you from? Are you Russian? You seem kind of Russian. I'm getting that Vitaly Borker vibe.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:16:52 -0800 The Stranger
European countries are unlike America. America is vast, whereas the entire continent of Europe is small, and that smallness is subdivided into multiple small countries. America is diverse, whereas European countries are comparatively homogenous. America's self-definition is its body of laws, whereas European states define themselves based on ethnicity, religion, language and customs that date back thousands of years.

We are not Europe. We are nothing like Europe.

If you must search for a model, base your model on our cousins, Canada, Mexico, Brazil. Look for vast countries, with much diversity, such as Russia (more Eurasian than European). Look to Africa, where one large country contains multiple ethnicities, languages, cultures, religions, traditions.

What was the experience of a small ethnically homogenous country beginning with an S? Who cares, we are a large, diverse nation that is neither Swiss, Swedish, Slovakian, Serbian, or Slovene. We have more in common with Saskatchewan than we do with Sicily.

All alliteration aside, please select a model more representative of the society whose trends it is supposed to predict.
Posted by Tacoma Traveler]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 18:42:19 -0800 The Stranger "Switzerland used to be into all that guns galore nonsense, but that was back in the day."

No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politic…
Switzerland had low gun-related violence rates even with fully automatic rifles being kept at home.

"Too much suicide, too many rampages. Same old same old. They cracked down."

You are lying.
From the Wikipedia article: Police statistics for the year 2006 records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault.

You can choose to be uninformed.
You can choose to lie.
But the facts are the facts.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 18:02:44 -0800 The Stranger
What country are you from? Wrongistan?

Here. Read. Switzerland used to be into all that guns galore nonsense, but that was back in the day. Too much suicide, too many rampages. Same old same old. They cracked down.

Poopy head. What country are you from?
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 17:43:31 -0800 The Stranger Posted by TheMisanthrope]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 17:25:44 -0800 The Stranger Posted by TheMisanthrope]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 17:20:22 -0800 The Stranger No, you managed to miss it, again.
You're uninformed on subject A. Gun control.
You're uninformed on subject B. Switzerland (lots of guns and they used to keep fully automatic rifles at home but very little gun violence).
You're uninformed on subject C. Terrorism. The TSA spends a lot of money (and searches a lot of children and old ladies) without catching any terrorists. The money could be spent on mental health care.

And instead of working to become better informed, you just post insults here.

Go ahead, post a single specific suggestion for a new law or laws that would have prevented this specific incident.
You won't because you cannot.
But you will continue to post insults.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 17:18:49 -0800 The Stranger
Got it. Soft on terrorism. Soft on guns. Soft on... what else? Bestiality? Marketing expired milk? Cheating at checkers? No doubt. No doubt. Soft, soft, soft.

@30

They pile on to me because I make them pile on. It's what I want them to do, and they cannot but obey. They want to ignore me, but I don't let them. They're like my anti-flying monkeys.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:59:26 -0800 The Stranger So you're trying to play the "September 11th" card now?

"None of them would have prevented terrorists from commandeering airplanes and crashing them into buildings."

Nor have most of the changes to the airline industry.
Except for reinforced flight deck doors.
And the TSA has yet to catch a single terrorist trying to get on a plane.
Yet the TSA keeps failing their own tests of whether someone can get a gun onto a plane.
Despite all the times the TSA searches children and old ladies.

So, all that money spent without anyone being caught trying to get on a plane.
And the few cases where someone was on a plane have been stopped by the other passengers.
And that is your model for valid changes to the law?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:14:43 -0800 The Stranger
Your first main point is that the conservative mind comes from a place of fear. Hasn't that been proven scientifically? The definition of conservative is "don't change anything" -- because... why? Fear of the unknown? Fear of new ideas? Fear of loss of control? Fear of new ideas?

I don't understand why those folks are piling onto you. Maybe it is that layer of snark -- it has set them off. I just see logic. If that is of any comfort.
Posted by bareboards]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:11:20 -0800 The Stranger
What about Switzerland? Their comprehensive mental health care system? Their refusal to sell guns at gun shows to crazies and criminals? How Switzerland has half as many guns per capita as the US? How their homicide rate is one sixth the US? Their noticeable lack of kooks killing children in schools?

Any other facts about Switzerland do you want to talk about?

By the way, what country are you from? I only ask because of how you know not doodly squat about US civics. Nothing personal, am I right?
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:07:19 -0800 The Stranger
Post them for whom? You? You can't read.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:57:34 -0800 The Stranger
After September 11, responsible people suggested things like increasing security at sea ports, and nuclear plants, and many many other changes unrelated to air travel. None of them would have prevented terrorists from commandeering airplanes and crashing them into buildings.

Did anybody suggest that was "exploiting a terrible tragedy"? Yes! Yes, many, many buffoons, clowns and trolls suggested that was exploiting a tragedy. Nobody listened to such talk. Except maybe joke writers for Jay Leno and Jon Stewart who needed somebody to make fun of during serious times. Or people who liked dicking around with inane internet trolls.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:56:51 -0800 The Stranger
Instead of getting all kicked out of shape, why won't you just admit it outright that you're exploiting a terrible tragedy to advance your agenda?

Why are you so upset that I'm pointing out the obvious?
Posted by CPN]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:23:20 -0800 The Stranger Maybe you should look up some facts about Switzerland.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:04:02 -0800 The Stranger
Yeah. Personal agenda. Wanting to prevent people from getting shot is just some personal proclivity. Like enjoying show tunes or wearing boxers. Personal shit. Taking on the NRA is so fun and personally rewarding that lots of us just like doing it for kicks. And whooopee! Here's our chance to go to town and further our personal agenda that has no other possible rational justification.

It's just a wild, wacky coincidence that every other industrialized county in the world except the US shares the same inexplicable "personal agenda". What are the odds?

Anyhoo. Are you fairly.unbalanced's sockpuppet? Or is he yours?
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:44:44 -0800 The Stranger "The way to act like gun control has no chance of passing is to act like gun control has no chance of passing."

Yeah. You might want to think about that a bit.
Or not.
So if you have specific suggestions, post them.
Or not.
Posting insults is not making any points.
But if that is all you have then that is all you have.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Comme…

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Comme…
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:05:55 -0800 The Stranger