Gun control zealots think that they can legislated them out of existence and don't care about the collateral damage to our other constitutional protections may result.

Guns will always be out there.

The solutions to violence have more to do with addressing poverty and inequity of power and lack of education than they do with magazine capacity.

speaking to the specific issue Noble was speaking of, I honestly think dismantling the empire and shrinking the MIC (both of which have the founders spinning in their graves) enough to down it in a bathtub would do more than playing aerial hit man with drones. The money saved from doing those two things could be more than enough to do the needed work.

You can't have a MIC our size and not have a similarly militant violent populace, they go hand in hand.

If we spend a third of our time and money making and polishing hammers, we'll spend another third looking for nails.



A big shrink would be a very good thing.

...once you open a can of worms it's very difficult to get them back in the can and you usually need a much bigger can.

However, I don't think anyone is really up for living in a can.

You'd be amazed.

Last edited Tue Oct 22, 2013, 02:29 PM - Edit history (1)

of letting these spectacular but rare events drive the debate. Even if we completely eliminated terrorist attacks (and active shooter events), it would represent a miniscule effect on rates of crime and violence overall, and likely at significant cost. (Which is not to say that these events should be ignored, just that they really shouldn't be major policy drivers.) The mundane - and far more common - aspects of violent crime are not really susceptible to the kinds of solutions that these big events seem to inspire.

At the same time, he limits himself to two extremes in addressing catastrophic events, overlooking the third and likely more effective path. Guns aren't going away, and relying on an ad hoc civilian response to an event like Nairobi is desperate, but police work, human intelligence, surveillance (within bounds), are the strategies that may help. It's like aviation security after September 11: TSA checkpoints don't stop shit, but careful investigation and observation has potential to thwart plots before they start. That's where we need to seek improvement (and where we need to focus a lot of oversight to prevent abuse)...

compared with mass muders, esp. one tinged with political terrorism. One thing is assured: a terrorist or a lone punk will find a way.

In this country, we won't know for some time whether or not a significant arms-bearing population will consistently thwart or lessen the damage of a mass shooting, though it has in some instances.

Another forum, who shall remain nameless, is highlighting a recent claim by "Mr. Fast & Furious" that these events are increasing in frequency.

If that's true, I guess Interpol's suggestions become more relevant?