Originally Posted by Copperfield

Pretty much. Stop and think for a minute about what becoming licensed to drive a vehicle entails... A few short hours of instruction and experience and a teenager is deemed worthy to command 1 ton of metal at speed. The thing is though with all of the incredible differences in experience, competence and intelligence between drivers driving tons of equipment over millions of miles, driving is a relatively safe activity. It's not safe because of the license of course (or the laughable joke called "driver ed"); it's because the overwhelming and vast majority of human beings have a vested interest in remaining alive.

State forced licensing isn't a tool to keep people safe, it's a tool to keep state bureaucrats employed.

... and the YouTube video was a hoot, too - the libertarian ideal that we are all rational and self regarding ... except we demonstrably are not.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

How many people has she killed?

So, until something tragic happens, it's no fault, no foul? By that logic, we shouldn't worry about our nuclear arsenal, because none of it has exploded so far. If you consider nukes to over-the-top, ratchet down to sarin or phosgene gas. The logic is the same.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

That's a very poor argument. Yes, the unlicensed drive, but, as you noted, they are a tiny minority. It's also true that licensed drivers have accidents. How bad would it be if money was the only factor, and anyone who had a car could just get in and drive?

Exactly the same. Because that tiny minority is analogous to people who commit serious gun crime versus the general population. Hell, most of the people who get their licenses suspended get them suspended due to things like lapses in insurance coverage or other trivial details. We used to gawk at the negative point balances on still licensed drivers. I think the lowest I ever saw was -68. Bear in mind that the Max you can get is a +5.

Do a little research on why we went to the trouble of mandating driver testing and licensure in the first place, then get back to me.

Originally Posted by Kepi ...

If a child under 12 gets a hold of a fire arm with out an adult present the owner is criminally liable. The law is pretty clear that it expects a 12 year old is old enough to know the basic dangers of what a gun can do. As for this lady... More than likely she'll never fire it. No amount of gun safety teaches a person discretion, but fortunately most people, gun owner or not, are never faced with the decision. If all she wants a gun for is the illusion of safety, what do I care?

Yes, the adult is guilty, but the child is dead. You have a lot in common with Copperfield on this.

Originally Posted by Kepi ...

And those are great personal rules, but they don't need to translate to a licence for every owner. While I think that some sort of storage requirement might be a good law, and while I've dealt with people doing dumb things with guns, I don't think that people follow the law because it's the law or because they're afraid of getting caught. I've spent far too long dealing with issues of crime and law to maintain that delusion. It's again analogous to traffic law. Most people follow it when it makes sense to and break it when it makes sense to or the situation at hand fails to make sense. Licensing would resolve absolutely nothing, just like it does for all the other things we license for because frankly the level of enforcement necessary to actually do that in a way that would have an impact would be both draconian and way too expensive, especially for a murder rate that, like all crime aside from institutional violence, is continuing to decline.

My problem with personal gun ownership has nothing to do with the truly responsible. It has to do with the less responsible, to say nothing of the outright irresponsible.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Note to Mr. Butler: I suggest you try the Bill of Rights argument with any prosecutor or law enforcement persons you might encounter. They might mention the words "murder", "assault with a deadly weapon", etc. It should work out about as well as the Sovereign Citizen thing. The video should be amusing.

You're right about the worldview difference. Which means we will see much more misery in the future.

Going even a bit further, why is a legal document necessary to advance such a basic concept as being free from harm? This was established in Engliish Common Law as an intrinsic right ... one not needing to be argued. If there is no intrinsic right to be safe and secure in your person, then only written law makes society possible.

Then, its the law or chaos.

Originally Posted by The Rani

This is interesting:


http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=37393

That's an awful lot of reporting to be done. And I would assume that failure to report carries liability risks for hospitals/clinicians.

While it is an obvious step to keep guns away from nuts, I share Rani's concerns. Something has to be done, but I expect that the proper envelope between doing enough in one person's view and doing too much in another's is going to be problematic.

Anyone think they know just how to keep guns and nuts separate? Who shares what responsibilities?

On another note, I'm mildly surprised to see Illinois going Concealed Carry. Before the Supreme Court declared that the 2nd established an individual right, Chicago was an extreme city in terms of making it nearly impossible to get a gun permit. A lot of Concealed Carry laws presume a right to keep and bear arms and allow to encourage the bearers to keep the weapons out of sight (and perhaps out of mind.)

In the gun thread I pointed out that there are multiple tactics to circumvent gun control. In practice, a big push for gun control will trigger circumvention by millions of otherwise law abiding citizens-not to mention criminals. (How effective is gun control if you can buy an AK-47 on the black market?). In the mean time, we must expect that the political party associated with this push will pay a high political price. (The number of gun owners in USA is estimated to be 60 million-that's a lot of voters). This may mean forfeiture of a Regeneracy.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

In the gun thread I pointed out that there are multiple tactics to circumvent gun control. In practice, a big push for gun control will trigger circumvention by millions of otherwise law abiding citizens-not to mention criminals. (How effective is gun control if you can buy an AK-47 on the black market?). In the mean time, we must expect that the political party associated with this push will pay a high political price. (The number of gun owners in USA is estimated to be 60 million-that's a lot of voters). This may mean forfeiture of a Regeneracy.

he's right, you outlaw my guns. I become an outlaw. simple.
I know lots more people who feel the same.

To work gun control would need a very broad consensus. That is not the case, and this is one of those issues in which a black market will readily defeat the law.

I see people making arguments about what ought to be, but they aren't thinking through the practical consequences.

I long ago gave up even concerning myself with any kind of gun control in the US. I've had guns pulled on me and saw a guy get shot on the street. I've dated a cop and a DEA agent, both of whom carried. I also grew up with rifles in the house. It's not worth the vitriol. Illinois now has concealed carry. In the 2 short weeks since it's been in place, requests for permits in Cook County (where Chicago is) are virtually nil. I wonder if population density has something to do with it.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

I hate to burst your bubble but police don't wander around on duty without a round in the chamber. It's called administrative loading. Most firearms instructors teach the same thing. If the firearm you carry isn't ready to be used immediately, then you may as well just carry a brick.

First of all, I never said that I believe that police don't walk around without a round in the chamber. I simply maintain that for 99.9% of police shootings, that they have more than enough time to jack a round into the chamber before they shoot.

And are you seriously telling me that when I have my .45 holstered, on my hip, without a round chambered, that I am no better armed than if I had a brick in hand?

In my old job before I retired, it happened that I was trained and green-belt certified in Lean/Six Sigma, a process analysis system that has evolved from the old Deming continuous quality improvement concepts. As a result, I suppose I have a tendency to drill into processes more than the average person might.

So ... indulge me for a moment ... let us examine the process of drawing one's weapon, preparing it to fire, aiming it and firing it.

First let us assume that adequate training, adequate equipmet, adequate maintenance, etc. are all in place. Let us further assume that a threat has arisen which requires one to defend oneself with a gun. And let us further assume that this threat comes in a form where there is still time to react.

So here I go ...
1. I reach to my holster.
2. I flip the snap catch that I have that holds my pistol in place in the holster.
3. I grasp the butt of my pistol and draw it.
4. In my case, due to my own personal practice, as I swing the piece into position, I pull back the slide.
5. The slide snaps back into place, both chambering the first round, and cocking the pistol.
6. Assuming there is still time, I would prefer to assume a stable shooting posture.
7. I now use some amount of time to assure myself that there are no innocents in my line of fire.
8. I now aim and begin to fire at the center of mass of my target.

Please correct me if I've missed something critical.

Now, it strikes me, that step 5. might possibly be the only difference between your behavior and mine in an identical circumstance?

Your step would involve cocking your piece? While my step involves pulling the slide. I concede that perhaps you save part of a second over my method.

Are you maintaining that this tiny increment of difference makes the difference between a Kimber .45 and a brick?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Do a little research on why we went to the trouble of mandating driver testing and licensure in the first place, then get back to me.

There's a world of difference between taking time to integrate new technology into a society in an orderly fashion and having a lasting licensure system. For instance, prohibition arose with the popularity of the automobile, and we have since done away with prohibition and have thrived because our culture changed to a lot four the generally more sober needs of our society. To imply we are some how the same society as the one from 1920 is silly.

Yes, the adult is guilty, but the child is dead. You have a lot in common with Copperfield on this.

Yes, I've worked this case before. The child was 4, and the gun was in a car. The gun owner was an armed security guard. Familiarity can breed more complacency than complete ineptness. Meanwhile law has an absolute zero track record of preventing crime. Law is there to protect criminals and thereby preventing a revenge spiral. It doesn't protect anyone, it doesn't prevent anything. It can establish an order, but generally once the order is established, the law reverts back to its function of protecting criminals and preventing undue retribution and the spiral of revenge that results. In the case of guns, if you commit a felony, they get taken away.

My problem with personal gun ownership has nothing to do with the truly responsible. It has to do with the less responsible, to say nothing of the outright irresponsible.

Existing laws already deal with the criminally irresponsible. The culture had already moved to one that is more responsible on its own, with violent crime rates declining for the past 30 years in most places. If you want to steer how disastrous implementing law can be, look no further than the war on drugs. Murder rates were beginning to decline in the 80s along with the rest of the crime rate until we implemented the War on Drugs. Then, while the murder rate continued its decline in most places, those specifically targeted by War on Drug policies saw their murder rates go up exponentially, being the driving force in a rapid rise in gang violence. That's right, a change in law for things which were already illegal drove the murder rate in localized areas so high that it affected the national murder rate.

Originally Posted by TnT

First of all, I never said that I believe that police don't walk around without a round in the chamber. I simply maintain that for 99.9% of police shootings, that they have more than enough time to jack a round into the chamber before they shoot.

And are you seriously telling me that when I have my .45 holstered, on my hip, without a round chambered, that I am no better armed than if I had a brick in hand?

In my old job before I retired, it happened that I was trained and green-belt certified in Lean/Six Sigma, a process analysis system that has evolved from the old Deming continuous quality improvement concepts. As a result, I suppose I have a tendency to drill into processes more than the average person might.

So ... indulge me for a moment ... let us examine the process of drawing one's weapon, preparing it to fire, aiming it and firing it.

First let us assume that adequate training, adequate equipmet, adequate maintenance, etc. are all in place. Let us further assume that a threat has arisen which requires one to defend oneself with a gun. And let us further assume that this threat comes in a form where there is still time to react.

So here I go ...
1. I reach to my holster.
2. I flip the snap catch that I have that holds my pistol in place in the holster.
3. I grasp the butt of my pistol and draw it.
4. In my case, due to my own personal practice, as I swing the piece into position, I pull back the slide.
5. The slide snaps back into place, both chambering the first round, and cocking the pistol.
6. Assuming there is still time, I would prefer to assume a stable shooting posture.
7. I now use some amount of time to assure myself that there are no innocents in my line of fire.
8. I now aim and begin to fire at the center of mass of my target.

Please correct me if I've missed something critical.

Now, it strikes me, that step 5. might possibly be the only difference between your behavior and mine in an identical circumstance?

Your step would involve cocking your piece? While my step involves pulling the slide. I concede that perhaps you save part of a second over my method.

Are you maintaining that this tiny increment of difference makes the difference between a Kimber .45 and a brick?

Both the officer involved shootings I worked were cop vs. car. They were both injured in the process. I don't think that chambering a round would have been possible for either, and for one I know it saved his life, because the only reason that the car stopped backing over him was because the driver had a bullet in him.

As I've said before, the self defense value of fire arms is overrated by your hardcore types. However, that doesn't mean it's non-existent.

Originally Posted by annla899

I long ago gave up even concerning myself with any kind of gun control in the US. I've had guns pulled on me and saw a guy get shot on the street. I've dated a cop and a DEA agent, both of whom carried. I also grew up with rifles in the house. It's not worth the vitriol. Illinois now has concealed carry. In the 2 short weeks since it's been in place, requests for permits in Cook County (where Chicago is) are virtually nil. I wonder if population density has something to do with it.

More than likely. Gun ownership becomes less practical in high population density areas. Readily available ranges our areas where you can hunt are fewer, police response time is higher if you're not in L.A... there's just less of a reason for the average person to have a gun at all. This changes once your police response time is 30+ minutes, you live in an area with the common American nuisance animal, and there are a plethora of indoor and outdoor ranges to choose from.

Originally Posted by B Butler

While it is an obvious step to keep guns away from nuts, I share Rani's concerns. Something has to be done, but I expect that the proper envelope between doing enough in one person's view and doing too much in another's is going to be problematic.

Anyone think they know just how to keep guns and nuts separate? Who shares what responsibilities?

This is not that complicated. We all know that perfection is unachievable, so the issue devolves to a tilt of one form or another. Do we prefer freedom and greater risk, or safety with greater restriction? Decide that, and the rest falls into place.

Originally Posted by B Butler ...

On another note, I'm mildly surprised to see Illinois going Concealed Carry. Before the Supreme Court declared that the 2nd established an individual right, Chicago was an extreme city in terms of making it nearly impossible to get a gun permit. A lot of Concealed Carry laws presume a right to keep and bear arms and allow to encourage the bearers to keep the weapons out of sight (and perhaps out of mind.)

Chicago =/= Illinois. Illinois is decidedly a southern state in the south, and Rush Limbaugh working class elsewhere. Chicago is the exception.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

In the gun thread I pointed out that there are multiple tactics to circumvent gun control. In practice, a big push for gun control will trigger circumvention by millions of otherwise law abiding citizens-not to mention criminals. (How effective is gun control if you can buy an AK-47 on the black market?). In the mean time, we must expect that the political party associated with this push will pay a high political price. (The number of gun owners in USA is estimated to be 60 million-that's a lot of voters). This may mean forfeiture of a Regeneracy.

Non-gunowners vastly outnumber gunowners, so who do you wish to alienate? At the moment, gunowners are ascendant, because they are passionate and their opponents aren't. That was also the case in Australia too, until it wasn't.

If attitudes and passions shift, the tide will be irresistable. That's why I say that gunowners being belligerant and dogmatic do so at their own peril.

Originally Posted by Danilynn

he's right, you outlaw my guns. I become an outlaw. simple.
I know lots more people who feel the same.

That's just what the Clantons said.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

To work gun control would need a very broad consensus. That is not the case, and this is one of those issues in which a black market will readily defeat the law.

I see people making arguments about what ought to be, but they aren't thinking through the practical consequences.

Look at the Australian experience. Australia is the county most like ours in this regard, but they changed quickly. Note: firearms are legal and available, but they are restricted.

Originally Posted by TnT

First of all, I never said that I believe that police don't walk around without a round in the chamber. I simply maintain that for 99.9% of police shootings, that they have more than enough time to jack a round into the chamber before they shoot.

And are you seriously telling me that when I have my .45 holstered, on my hip, without a round chambered, that I am no better armed than if I had a brick in hand?

In my old job before I retired, it happened that I was trained and green-belt certified in Lean/Six Sigma, a process analysis system that has evolved from the old Deming continuous quality improvement concepts. As a result, I suppose I have a tendency to drill into processes more than the average person might.

So ... indulge me for a moment ... let us examine the process of drawing one's weapon, preparing it to fire, aiming it and firing it.

First let us assume that adequate training, adequate equipmet, adequate maintenance, etc. are all in place. Let us further assume that a threat has arisen which requires one to defend oneself with a gun. And let us further assume that this threat comes in a form where there is still time to react.

So here I go ...
1. I reach to my holster.
2. I flip the snap catch that I have that holds my pistol in place in the holster.
3. I grasp the butt of my pistol and draw it.
4. In my case, due to my own personal practice, as I swing the piece into position, I pull back the slide.
5. The slide snaps back into place, both chambering the first round, and cocking the pistol.
6. Assuming there is still time, I would prefer to assume a stable shooting posture.
7. I now use some amount of time to assure myself that there are no innocents in my line of fire.
8. I now aim and begin to fire at the center of mass of my target.

Please correct me if I've missed something critical.

Now, it strikes me, that step 5. might possibly be the only difference between your behavior and mine in an identical circumstance?

Your step would involve cocking your piece? While my step involves pulling the slide. I concede that perhaps you save part of a second over my method.

Are you maintaining that this tiny increment of difference makes the difference between a Kimber .45 and a brick?

When asked in his later years how he outdrew all his opponents, Wyatt Earp said he rarely drew quickly or fired first. His focus was on stance and aim. His opinon, based on his still being alive, was that hitting your target was the only issue of importance.

Originally Posted by Kepi

There's a world of difference between taking time to integrate new technology into a society in an orderly fashion and having a lasting licensure system. For instance, prohibition arose with the popularity of the automobile, and we have since done away with prohibition and have thrived because our culture changed to a lot four the generally more sober needs of our society. To imply we are some how the same society as the one from 1920 is silly.

Red herring #1. What does this have to do with licensing automobile drivers? Licensing began out of self defense, and at a time when any yahoo with the money and deaire to acquire a car could just hop in and drive. Once the number of cars rose even a small amount, the mayhem quickly convinced even those living in less urban areas that some controls had to be imposed. They became codified and normalized over time, but fear and anger got the process started.

Originally Posted by Kepi ...

Yes, I've worked this case before. The child was 4, and the gun was in a car. The gun owner was an armed security guard. Familiarity can breed more complacency than complete ineptness. Meanwhile law has an absolute zero track record of preventing crime. Law is there to protect criminals and thereby preventing a revenge spiral. It doesn't protect anyone, it doesn't prevent anything. It can establish an order, but generally once the order is established, the law reverts back to its function of protecting criminals and preventing undue retribution and the spiral of revenge that results. In the case of guns, if you commit a felony, they get taken away.

Again, the reactive nature of your method requires someone to die or be injured to get results. No, that's unacceptable.

Originally Posted by Kepi ...

Existing laws already deal with the criminally irresponsible. The culture had already moved to one that is more responsible on its own, with violent crime rates declining for the past 30 years in most places. If you want to steer how disastrous implementing law can be, look no further than the war on drugs. Murder rates were beginning to decline in the 80s along with the rest of the crime rate until we implemented the War on Drugs. Then, while the murder rate continued its decline in most places, those specifically targeted by War on Drug policies saw their murder rates go up exponentially, being the driving force in a rapid rise in gang violence. That's right, a change in law for things which were already illegal drove the murder rate in localized areas so high that it affected the national murder rate.

The decline in crime is greatest in areas with the lowest, not the highest, rate of gun ownership. Blame the emergence of peace on the Millenials, who are much less violent than their Xer predecessors, or the Boomers who preceded them.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

... and the YouTube video was a hoot, too - the libertarian ideal that we are all rational and self regarding ... except we demonstrably are not.

It's nice that you adhere to the quaint old mythologies you have been told. It's cute.

The age old belief that all human beings must be dominated using the lowest common denominator as an excuse. Told by the powerful that barbarians are all around you, you consent to barbarism in your name. Enjoy the warmth of your diaper. You've earned it!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

So, until something tragic happens, it's no fault, no foul?

Correct. That's because things that haven't happened didn't happen. Understanding the difference between reality and make-believe is important to the development from infant to adulthood.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

By that logic, we shouldn't worry about our nuclear arsenal, because none of it has exploded so far. If you consider nukes to over-the-top, ratchet down to sarin or phosgene gas. The logic is the same.

"None of it" other than the 2053 nuclear weapons detonated on earth by nuclear powers you mean? (wait for the 1960's!)

Nuclear weapons are tools built by the state to help further the agenda of that particular state's elite power structure. As the video adequately shows, the only people nuking anyone is your own government (indeed the entire cold war can be defined as the various nuclear powers nuking themselves for 40 years). The same goes for any violent tool you wish to conjur really. The occasional violence between individuals pales in comparison to the violence, destruction and havoc unleashed by governments.

Originally Posted by TnT

So ... indulge me for a moment ... let us examine the process of drawing one's weapon, preparing it to fire, aiming it and firing it.

First let us assume that adequate training, adequate equipmet, adequate maintenance, etc. are all in place. Let us further assume that a threat has arisen which requires one to defend oneself with a gun. And let us further assume that this threat comes in a form where there is still time to react.

So here I go ...
1. I reach to my holster.
2. I flip the snap catch that I have that holds my pistol in place in the holster.
3. I grasp the butt of my pistol and draw it.
4. In my case, due to my own personal practice, as I swing the piece into position, I pull back the slide.
5. The slide snaps back into place, both chambering the first round, and cocking the pistol.
6. Assuming there is still time, I would prefer to assume a stable shooting posture.
7. I now use some amount of time to assure myself that there are no innocents in my line of fire.
8. I now aim and begin to fire at the center of mass of my target.

Please correct me if I've missed something critical.

Now, it strikes me, that step 5. might possibly be the only difference between your behavior and mine in an identical circumstance?

Your step would involve cocking your piece? While my step involves pulling the slide. I concede that perhaps you save part of a second over my method.

Are you maintaining that this tiny increment of difference makes the difference between a Kimber .45 and a brick?

All that is fine. Now how did you confirm that you seated the magazine correctly?

After answering that then tell me how you confirm that you didn't short stroke the slide (we are talking about doing this under pressure after all)?

If you answered either question with, "When I pulled the trigger and got that lonely, empty click" then you are already dead. As for my pistol, all that has already been checked before I even walk out the door. Adding unnecessary steps to the manual of arms will always decrease your effectiveness and in a combat situation is that really what you want?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Red herring #1. What doites this have to do with licensing automobile drivers? Licensing began out of self defense, and at a time when any yahoo with the money and deaire to acquire a car could just hop in and drive. Once. he number of cars rose even a small amount, the mayhem quickly convinced even those living in less urban areas that some controls had to be imposed. They became codified and normalized over time, but fear and anger got the process started.

Because both are the products of industrialization. We needed a new social order, and used law to implement it. Law was a stop gap, a way to create compliance with a new order. Necessary to a new society. Once you have an order in place you don't need to keep the associated laws in place. Nobody drives how they've been taught to. They drive the way their local driving culture reaches them to. Plus, let's point out out that both were products of a 3T. Far too late for this kind of garbage now.

Again, the reactive nature of your method requires someone to die or be injured to get results. No, that's unacceptable.

Uh, that's not my method, that's called "how law works". Law is a reactive process. Anything else is a violation of things like due process. There's no such thing as a preventative law, becausethe entire purpose is to punish people for doing something wrong. Not crazy, not irresponsible, not unnerving: wrong. And it had to involve a specific action, and intent. None of these criteria are present in what you propose.

Now that's not uncommon to law since the 2T, but what that's meant it's just an increase in general nuisance laws (laws that are a nuisance, not laws prohibiting nuisance behavior), unenforceable laws, ineffective laws, and laws that do things like violate due process.

This is part of the 1-2 punch combo that keeps gun control advocates on the ropes the entire time when it comes to getting legislation passed. People see tragedy, that swing percentage says "maybe gun control", but then they see what the proposals are and decide "no thank you". Part two of this combo comes in with the general disposition of the strongest advocates. Loud, nagging, and hysterical... which of these is supposed to appeal to people who fence ride the issue? Especially when you're talking about Millennials, all three of those qualities are seen as negative, and when they're already like warm on the concept, that will send them running away from the proposed legislation, for sure.

See threes are kids who grew up with the results of Columbine hysteria, War on Terror hysteria, and likely hysterical, overly emotional parenting. They're not going to respond well to fear and outrage.Things like tantrum laws are going to disenfranchise and demotivate Millennials, which effectively leaves these laws DOA because in this day and age a noisy, hysterical minority doesn't get laws past. You have to have a large number of people backing it, and that means feet on the ground, which means a Millennial response is necessary.

The decline in crime is greatest in areas with the lowest, not the highest, rate of gun ownership. Blame the emergence of peace on the Millenials, who are much less violent than their Xer predecessors, or the Boomers who preceded them.

Your first part had you seeing the locomotive and the cars, but missing the tracks entirely. Places with the higher rates of gun ownership generally correlate with longer police response times. If you live in a place with a 4 minute response time, your neighbor is less likely to own a gun, because he doesn't need it. Your neighbor is also less likely to escalate his domestic dispute to the point of no return in that time either. There's one place in my county that has a 30 minute minimum response time. They're all armed up there because of it. It's also the most violent area, because there's nobody that can defuse a situation nearby, as all parties there are involved. That, coupled with the fact that criminals actively do seek out places where cops don't hang out is precisely why you see that correlation, because when we're talking declining crime, we're talking all crime indexes. Nobody needs a gun to go shop lifting. They do need a place with no cops.

As to your second point, it seems the gun control cause is more than a day late and a dollar short. Also, my guess is implementation of gun control would lead to more spree shootings, which are the statistically insignificant exception to the lower Millennial violence rule. So, yeah, gun control can go back in the box and wait to fail again in another turning (likely an early to mid 3rd), likely in another couple saeculum, if ever.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

It's nice that you adhere to the quaint old mythologies you have been told. It's cute.

The age old belief that all human beings must be dominated using the lowest common denominator as an excuse. Told by the powerful that barbarians are all around you, you consent to barbarism in your name. Enjoy the warmth of your diaper. You've earned it!

Belief in the non-existent is delusion, and many libertarians have mastered it at the level of art. No, the lowest common denominator is not the standard, but median plus a comfortable cushion is. To do otherwise is tantamount to elitism by dogma. You can try, but the numbers will make it an effort in futility.

But carry-on, regardless.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Correct. That's because things that haven't happened didn't happen. Understanding the difference between reality and make-believe is important to the development from infant to adulthood.

This, in a capsule, is the reason your philosophy will never generate enough momentum to be more than the basis of a debating club. Head-in-sand may seem ideal to you, but it scares the bejesus out of rational folks.

Originally Posted by Copperfield ...

"None of it" other than the 2053 nuclear weapons detonated on earth by nuclear powers you mean? (wait for the 1960's!)

Nuclear weapons are tools built by the state to help further the agenda of that particular state's elite power structure. As the video adequately shows, the only people nuking anyone is your own government (indeed the entire cold war can be defined as the various nuclear powers nuking themselves for 40 years). The same goes for any violent tool you wish to conjur really. The occasional violence between individuals pales in comparison to the violence, destruction and havoc unleashed by governments.

Red herring #2. You make my argument for me, then argue it's yours. Yes, nukes are under the thumb of governments, and managed in the tightest way possible because the risk of error or lunacy are so incredibly high. If they have to exist, and we can argue that elsewhere, then obsessive control is a must. You even seem to agree with that.

And just to cover your implied argument: execution always falls short of intent. Governments act obsessive about nuclear weapons because the margin of error is small. But statistics are statistics, and some 3-sigma plus events will always occur. The trick is how they are accommodated in advance. Are you arguing that all the testing was done in a flippant manner, resulting in thousands of deaths? No, I didn't think so.