Sad times

[Beef Oven!]

I think the "human nature" argument against more equal conceptions of society has been discussed here before. There are at least as many arguments for humanity as a cooperative species ("going back to the year dot") as there are for it being a brutal species. It shouldn't be a question in any case about what happened in the past but about what could happen in the future. It requires the same leap of faith to think society isn't capable of improvement as to think it is. I make the latter choice.

You've ignored my first, and the most important point. There is no way of knowing that what you are suggesting will be any better, it may be worse. And isn't faith problematic?

[Serial_Apologist]

You've ignored my first, and the most important point. There is no way of knowing that what you are suggesting will be any better, it may be worse. And isn't faith problematic?

Every time you go out is based on faith! Faith isn't necessarily synonymous with religion.

[Richard Barrett]

I'm not going to have this argument here or now. Whatever the reasons and motivations and influences and complexities behind this massacre I would just rather imagine a world where such things didn't happen rather than one where they always would.

[Beef Oven!]

I'm not going to have this argument here or now. Whatever the reasons and motivations and influences and complexities behind this massacre I would just rather imagine a world where such things didn't happen rather than one where they always would.

I didn't realise it was an argument. I'd like the world to be the way you mention, but for me, there has to be more than imagining it.

[Beef Oven!]

Every time you go out is based on faith! Faith isn't necessarily synonymous with religion.

Having faith that you'll be alright when you step outside your door is one thing - organising human relations based on a leap of faith is quite another.

[ahinton]

I didn't realise it was an argument. I'd like the world to be the way you mention, but for me, there has to be more than imagining it.

Indeed - and I don't doubt that we all realise that. The US issue is one that only its government can hope to overcome but, as yet, it fights shy of taking that step for fear of its own gun lobby. OK, even radical overhaul of US gun laws won't prevent some people from obtaining guns illegally, but it would almost certainly lead to far less deaths as a consequence of gun crime. That said, as not only was FBI aware of this latest gun criminal yet saw fit to do nothing but also the fellow's ex-wife claimed that he was mentally ill and abusive, the fact that he was nevertheless licensed to carry a gun ought to be enough to motivate US government to cmmence such an overhaul. Pressure from elsewhere might help - the elsewhere in which citizens don't have such rights, that is.

[Serial_Apologist]

Having faith that you'll be alright when you step outside your door is one thing - organising human relations based on a leap of faith is quite another.

Is it a leap of faith to try and understand the forces that lead to destructive behaviour? Controlled forms of social organisation that depend on keeping a lid on socially engineered conflict which brings out the worst in people are intelligeable on their own terms.

[Beef Oven!]

Is it a leap of faith to try and understand the forces that lead to destructive behaviour? Controlled forms of social organisation that depend on keeping a lid on socially engineered conflict which brings out the worst in people are intelligeable on their own terms.

Ask RB. I was responding, not initiating.

[Serial_Apologist]

Ask RB. I was responding, not initiating.

I was responding to your #50, which in turn was a response to my #47 - I have no need to ask Richard, but if you wish to terminate our side of the discussion, so be it.

[Beef Oven!]

I was responding to your #50, which in turn was a response to my #47 - I have no need to ask Richard, but if you wish to terminate our side of the discussion, so be it.

Which concerned RB's leap of faith idea. I'm happy to continue our side of the discussion, but this LOF thing isn't mine.

[richardfinegold]

Most people in the US are frustrated with the inertia on reformg the availability of forearms. Personally, I favor a 90 day amnesty during which everyone can turn in their firearm without penalty. After that, a mandatory House search nation wide should occur, and anyone still in possession of firearms shoud get the death penalty, to be enacted immediately.
the Gun Lobby unfortunately cuts across Party Lines in this country. There are plenty of Left leaning Democrats in Rural and Urban areas that do not favor restricting firearms. Combine them with the right wingers who traditionally knee jerk defend any infringement upon "gun rights" and they form an unbeatable Political entity.
Still, why gun availability is part of the problem,m we can't overlook who is doing the shooting. It isn't rabid Christian Fundamentalists or Rabbinical Students. No one wishes to stigmatize the entire Muslim world as a bunch of crazy killers, or to endorse Trump style restrictions, but it would be nice to see more leadership from the Muslim world in trying to combat the Death Cult of ISIS

[Tetrachord]

I'm very sorry about the tragedy in Orlando. Frightful. The American people are friendly, warm, mostly big-hearted and usually the first to help others during foreign disasters. I wish them well and a speedy recovery for the state of Florida. For the relatives and friends of the victims we can only offer our condolences for their unimaginable loss. Such pain for them in the years ahead.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Still, why gun availability is part of the problem,m we can't overlook who is doing the shooting. It isn't rabid Christian Fundamentalists or Rabbinical Students. No one wishes to stigmatize the entire Muslim world as a bunch of crazy killers, or to endorse Trump style restrictions, but it would be nice to see more leadership from the Muslim world in trying to combat the Death Cult of ISIS

Oh dear. Here we go again. It's the availability of guns that continues to fuel the problem. Homicides per 100,000 in the USA are 57 times as high as in the UK. That statistic has nothing whatever to do with the presence of Muslims in either country. It has a lot to do with guns.

[Barbirollians]

Most people in the US are frustrated with the inertia on reformg the availability of forearms. Personally, I favor a 90 day amnesty during which everyone can turn in their firearm without penalty. After that, a mandatory House search nation wide should occur, and anyone still in possession of firearms shoud get the death penalty, to be enacted immediately.
the Gun Lobby unfortunately cuts across Party Lines in this country. There are plenty of Left leaning Democrats in Rural and Urban areas that do not favor restricting firearms. Combine them with the right wingers who traditionally knee jerk defend any infringement upon "gun rights" and they form an unbeatable Political entity.


Still, why gun availability is part of the problem,m we can't overlook who is doing the shooting. It isn't rabid Christian Fundamentalists or Rabbinical Students. No one wishes to stigmatize the entire Muslim world as a bunch of crazy killers, or to endorse Trump style restrictions, but it would be nice to see more leadership from the Muslim world in trying to combat the Death Cult of ISIS

Excellent point EA - I do not recall the Oklahoma bombing or the Columbine . Isla Vista , Sandyhook or Virginia Tech massacres being carried out by Muslims .

[Dave2002]

Oh dear. Here we go again. It's the availability of guns that continues to fuel the problem. Homicides per 100,000 in the USA are 57 times as high as in the UK. That statistic has nothing whatever to do with the presence of Muslims in either country. It has a lot to do with guns.

I investigated that years ago. An interesting fact emerged that about half the gun related deaths (I thought it was that last time I looked - but that may not be correct now - see *** below) in the US are suicides, which when I checked was not so different from other countries (suicides that is) per head of population. Where the US is way ahead is in homicides, where the number is very, very sigificantly higher than in countries which have tighter gun laws. Things that many Americans (a seemingly significant, but obstructive, proportion of the total anyway) don't seem to realise is that:

1. Many people live in cities, so the chances of being attacked by a bear are now remote.
2. As above, but replace "bear" by "alligator".
3. Just because some rules were written hundreds of years ago, when they may have been appropriate, doesn't make them right now.
4. The rules weren't written at a time when AK47 and other high powered guns were available. Rocket launchers will be next, I suppose.
5. The belief that guns can be used in the case that the US government "goes bad" and targets groups of individuals - who might want to "defend their rights" is farcical. If the US government did decide to go after specific groups (heaven forbid) for example using the army or air force etc., then it would take a lot more than a few dozen people armed with sub machine guns to stop them.
6. In a shoot out between someone who hasn't much experience of guns against someone who is not scared to use one, the latter usually wins (this is to counter the self defence argument - that if someone else has a gun every individual should have one too, for self protection).
7. Automatic weapons usually win against single shot weapons, or weapons with small magazines.
8. Food can be obtained in supermarkets and stores, without the need to go out to the woods to shoot bears, deer, birds or other animals in order to eat. The American Constitution does not mention supermarkets AFAIK.

*** see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vi..._United_States