A Gun control solution - perhaps

[sculptor]

Wow, highschool--- Trying to remember--- so far I can think of 3 teachers, out of 30-40, that would seem likely candidates for concealed carry. Maybe 4 if you include the woman's gym and health teacher(but she had an affair with a student so maybe a problem there?).

 

[CptBork]

Weakness, created in large part by Israel. The strategy of getting everyone else to fight each other was not a bad one.

As far as I'm aware, no two Muslim countries have ever fought against each other in order to defend Israel's interests. Divisions in the Muslim world go back to the times of Mohammed and earlier, and most of their present conflicts stem from individual factions, sects and races vying to dominate the region to the exclusion of everyone else.

From Machiavelli's pov, anyway. In the short run.
Note that a nuclear armed Iran would not be much of a threat to attack Israel with nuclear weapons. But it would be a threat to the instability of the Middle East in general - Iran would have secure borders and solid alliances, and so then might its neighbors. And that would be a threat to Israel - a serious one.

A nuclear Iran would be a big target for other nuclear powers, and an incitement for other countries in the region to pursue or expand existing nuclear programs. Plus Israel could legitimately assume that every incoming missile potentially has a nuke on it and use the excuse to overreact. Not smart long-term strategy at all, and in the event of a wider confrontation, Iran's borders won't be secure unless it cleanses hundreds of millions of Sunnis within its own borders and beyond.

There is a strained parallel with the gun control struggle in the US - an obvious and visible better outcome, not obtainable via current tactics because the current tactics break the alliances necessary.

As US demographics shift and law-abiding lunatics continue to pop off at schools and theatres, the fight should gradually become easier. In the mean time, IMO, perhaps minorities should start mass-arming themselves and forming legal armed citizens' groups of their own to counter the white supremacists and make it clear that their democratic rights (and the rights of democratic governments to protect those rights) will not be undermined by private citizens. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em as they say.

 

[iceaura]

As far as I'm aware, no two Muslim countries have ever fought against each other in order to defend Israel's interests.

Irrelevant. Israel doesn't care whose interests they're fighting over. The ideal for Israel is civil war in all its neighbors.

A nuclear Iran would be a big target for other nuclear powers,

They already are. At least then they'd have nukes of their own - that might put a damper on their enemies's enthusiasms.

Plus Israel could legitimately assume that every incoming missile potentially has a nuke on it and use the excuse to overreact.

Israel can do that now. Plus they can launch preemptive strikes, leverage with threat, etc. That demonstrates the benefits to Israel of having nukes.

Not smart long-term strategy at all, and in the event of a wider confrontation, Iran's borders won't be secure unless it cleanses hundreds of millions of Sunnis within its own borders and beyond.

Better than now.

As US demographics shift and law-abiding lunatics continue to pop off at schools and theatres, the fight should gradually become easier. In the mean time, IMO, perhaps minorities should start mass-arming themselves and forming legal armed citizens' groups of their own

And that sounds like an easier future for gun control to you?

 

[iceaura]

Are you saying that there is no solution to the gun control issue?

I posted my best shorthand recommendation, in direct response to you asking, above (#280). I have been posting a variety of suggestions I think would improve matters significantly for years now, on this forum.
IMHO the main issue is gun violence, not gun control, and for that there are many ameliorations and improvements ready to hand. The biggest one so far enacted was mandating unleaded gasoline - quite a bit of gun violence has evaporated since the fifteenth year of unleaded gasoline.

As you describe, the reality of significant social inertia being as it appears to be, renders a solution impossible given the way the minorities, as you call them, fight.

Not at all. The liberals can adopt reason, demonstrate trustworthiness, pick up the splintered majority, and enact their by then reasonable agenda any time. They don't have to overcome so much of their own "side's" financial interests, for one thing.

The minorities, pro and against, are only symptomatic of an underlying paranoia.

Paranoia in two small minorities, either one or both isolatable at any time.

 

[Quantum Quack]

They already are. At least then they'd have nukes of their own - that might put a damper on their enemies's enthusiasms.

Of course if one takes a time leap to that time when Iran has completed it's nuke program. But alas it hasn't (?) and it's the journey, the evolution , the generation of Iran's nuclear WMD program that could become extremely uncomfortable that you appear to be deliberately omitting in your assessment.
Your a smart poster who, no doubt, is fully aware of the implications of what will happen if Iran restarts it's nuke WMD development program.
So I wonder, as to your agenda here iceaura... care to enlighten us all?

Why are you deliberately omitting the fact that development of nukes takes time and what Israel/USA/France/Germany/Russia/UK and so on, may or may not do to stop them, during that time?

 

[Quantum Quack]

I posted my best shorthand recommendation, in direct response to you asking, above (#280). I have been posting a variety of suggestions I think would improve matters significantly for years now, on this forum.
IMHO the main issue is gun violence, not gun control, and for that there are many ameliorations and improvements ready to hand. The biggest one so far enacted was mandating unleaded gasoline - quite a bit of gun violence has evaporated since the fifteenth year of unleaded gasoline.

Not at all. The liberals can adopt reason, demonstrate trustworthiness, pick up the splintered majority, and enact their by then reasonable agenda any time. They don't have to overcome so much of their own "side's" financial interests, for one thing.

Paranoia in two small minorities, either one or both isolatable at any time.

and how are you going to achieve the above (in bold)?
From what I read you are suggesting nothing except a continuous maintenance of the status quo. ( no doubt others have tried as you have suggested and failed many times)

 

[iceaura]

and how are you going to achieve the above (in bold)?

By continual public reasoning and persuasion, well-chosen and argued legal cases, media presence, and support for appropriate political candidates - as with all liberal causes.
What has worked in the past, in other matters. The only thing that works well long term.

From what I read you are suggesting nothing except a continuous maintenance of the status quo.

The adoption of my suggestions would eliminate one of the two sides currently jambing, and at least partially unify the splintered majority of reasonable people - almost all of whom favor the various gun control proposals currently jambed.

( no doubt others have tried as you have suggested and failed many times)

It hasn't really been tried, no.

 

[iceaura]

Your a smart poster who, no doubt, is fully aware of the implications of what will happen if Iran restarts it's nuke WMD development program.

I'm not that sure how far they are from obtaining a nuke or two, right now.
And I'm not sure Iran has any choice - if they are cornered, as many are recommending they be, they would have little to lose as a State.

If China is faced with the threat of Israel preemptively nuking Iran, it would be in China's interest to loan a few nukes to Iran to calm things down. That could happen within a couple of weeks, any time.

 

[Quantum Quack]

If China is faced with the threat of Israel preemptively nuking Iran, it would be in China's interest to loan a few nukes to Iran to calm things down. That could happen within a couple of weeks, any time.

I don't think lending Iran nukes would go down well...breaching the NPT would destabilize all signatories.

Iran is a party to the NPT but was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement, and the status of its nuclear program remains in dispute. In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program.
src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons#Iran
​

But you know all this so ...uhm... what's up?

 

[Quantum Quack]

By continual public reasoning and persuasion, well-chosen and argued legal cases, media presence, and support for appropriate political candidates - as with all liberal causes.
What has worked in the past, in other matters. The only thing that works well long term.

How much nation wide firearms control has been successfully legislated in the last 5 years or so...?
My guess zero...
Not even uniform state wide reform... again zero
why not?
I am just wanting you to support your optimism with some history of success ( nation wide ) but understand if that's not possible.

 

[iceaura]

I don't think lending Iran nukes would go down well...breaching the NPT would destabilize all signatories.

So don't push them to that decision. Don't let Israel do that either.

Meanwhile, re undermining the NPT: Israel and its helpers already did that. (The result was greater stability, btw).
The IAEA, pushed and led by the US, has already reneged on its NPT agreements with Iran. Iran is so far the country most in compliance with the nuclear agreements signed by others with Iran.
- - - -

I am just wanting you to support your optimism with some history of success ( nation wide ) but understand if that's not possible.

I'm not optimistic. I'm just recommending changing the dominant current public approach to a different one, to what has been historically the best and most likely avenue for progress in many issues: the establishment and furtherance of sound and reasonable and effective liberal governance;

and most to the point: not repeating mistakes or flailing around breaking things out of frustration. These are valuable things - Constitutional rights, honest and soundly reasoned public argument from the politically powerful, informed judgment, doing what's best all around.

Don't do wrong because you've failed at doing right so far, shorthand.

 

[CptBork]

And that sounds like an easier future for gun control to you?

Yes, if the primary reason for certain interests to push for little to no restrictions has to do with fears of changing demographics, as was the case for Charlton Heston. Seeing this avenue closed off as a means of guaranteeing overall authority for white American males, they would most likely prefer that everyone were disarmed, with practical exceptions for hunters etc.

 

[iceaura]

Yes, if the primary reason for certain interests to push for little to no restrictions has to do with fears of changing demographics, as was the case for Charlton Heston. Seeing this avenue closed off as a means of guaranteeing overall authority for white American males, they would most likely prefer that everyone were disarmed, with practical exceptions for hunters etc.

Ok, that's creatively new.
I'll be looking forward to the push for disarming everyone, from the gun lobby.

 

[CptBork]

Ok, that's creatively new.
I'll be looking forward to the push for disarming everyone, from the gun lobby.

That will come once America's minorities are just as well-armed as the angry old whites, and ready to use their arms in "self-defense" upon any threats or provocations from the latter. They're not keeping rifles at home to shoot down F-35's, or to protect the precious TV's which regulate their heartbeats.

 

[Vociferous]

I would like to ask our resident NRA inspired gun advocates how they intend to fullfill their obligation with regards to protecting their family, children and friends from what appears to be inevitable.?

(any mass shooting - not just schools )

Any mass shooting is protected against by concealed carry, just like armed teachers would do for schools.

Yes, if the primary reason for certain interests to push for little to no restrictions has to do with fears of changing demographics, as was the case for Charlton Heston. Seeing this avenue closed off as a means of guaranteeing overall authority for white American males, they would most likely prefer that everyone were disarmed, with practical exceptions for hunters etc.

Most conservatives encourage minorities to legally own and carry guns. That would mean more people who actually learn what regulations already exist, which polls always tout as ignorant people "wanting more gun control."

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Any mass shooting is protected against by concealed carry, just like armed teachers would do for schools. " LOL.

 

[pjdude1219]

demonstrate trustworthiness

gun nuts who threaten to kill people if they don't get their way trustworthy
liberals who dont like being with threatened with death untrustworthy

this is why your a nut job ice. until you and yours actually condemns the violence you have zero trustworthiness and are in no position to issue demands that people cave to insanity. before you say you do we both know thats not true at all. the pro control side as shown remarkable restraint in the threats you and yours throw every day its time for to show your worth viewing as something other than rabid animals.

 

[CptBork]

gun nuts who threaten to kill people if they don't get their way trustworthy
liberals who dont like being with threatened with death untrustworthy

Actually, this makes me think... Is there any law against watching gun owners closely and holding them to the highest standards of accountability? If you own a gun and threaten violence against someone, even if the threats don't explicitly involve weapons, it should be an instant trip to the psych ward for assessment as well as temporary confiscation of your firearms until you've been shown not to pose any realistic threat. Should be the same for any kind of misdemeanor- if you want to own a gun, you should be expected and forced to conform to the highest standards of nonviolent, lawful public behaviour, and any threats you make in private should be taken with utmost seriousness by anyone who overhears you, as should their eyewitness testimony to doctors and police after overhearing said threats.

There should be responsibility costs imposed on anyone who wants to walk down the street with the privileged ability to end anyone else's life on a dime, just for looking at them the wrong way or cutting them off in traffic.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The irresponsible gun owners actually think they're doing fine as things are now. That's why we get casual dismissal of dead children.

 

[CptBork]

The irresponsible gun owners actually think they're doing fine as things are now. That's why we get casual dismissal of dead children.

"I'm gonna kick yer ass!" should be an instant trip to jail or a psych unit, if uttered in public or private by a "law-abiding" gun owner. It constitutes a threat of violence, threatening violence is itself a crime, and it's reasonable to assume that the person uttering the threat is willing to escalate to any level necessary in order to successfully carry it out.

In the majority of gun-related massacres that I'm aware of, someone at some point always had an indication that a person with access to dangerous firearms was showing unstable behaviour. Perhaps it should be legally mandatory to report these kinds of things or else be treated as an accomplice or accessory to the crime. Make it really, really inconvenient for anyone with "rebellious" intentions to own a gun.