3 percent of americans own 50 percent of america's guns. i think a lot of your crazies are going to be found in that cohort. it's not the ownership of a dozen semi-auto long guns with bump stocks (paddock), it's the culture that causes him to want to own them.

have you ever thought that a culture that deifies guns is what animates and energizes the crazies you want to address?

3 percent of americans own 50 percent of america's guns. i think a lot of your crazies are going to be found in that cohort. it's not the ownership of a dozen semi-auto long guns with bump stocks (paddock), it's the culture that causes him to want to own them.

have you ever thought that a culture that deifies guns is what animates and energizes the crazies you want to address?

So are you agreeing with Trump's bill?

For another, we also won't tell folks what to do or how to behave when in "polite society." Parental authority -- or simply even adult authority -- is almost nonexistent, from the looks of things. When I was a boy in the 1960s and early 1970s, you listened to and obeyed the directives you were given by adults, including teachers , neighbors and so forth, or you faced clear consequences, starting with those dealt out by a father and/or mother. Which brings me to the disintegration of the so-called "nuclear family."

I pointed out last night that the percentage of gun ownership has greatly declined over the past 35 years but that guns are concentrated in the hands of fewer people. Ceteris parabus, it seems that it's a wash when it comes to this particular aspect.

You made my point about culture for me, though, perhaps without realizing it. (Or, in my opinion, the lack of a civilizing culture complete with the institutions that used to enforce such civilizing influences.)

What's really changed over the last last half-century, or at least since the mid-1970s? It seems to me that it's the lack of bonds and boundaries within our culture that used to act to head-off, preempt or otherwise prevent such mindless gun violence, especially when it comes to school shootings. For one, we won't address the serious failings in our mental health system, including a lack of resources targeted at the issue in the first place.

For another, we also won't tell folks what to do or how to behave when in "polite society." Parental authority -- or simply even adult authority -- is almost nonexistent, from the looks of things. When I was a boy in the 1960s and early 1970s, you listened to and obeyed the directives you were given by adults, including teachers , neighbors and so forth, or you faced clear consequences, starting with those dealt out by a father and/or mother. Which brings me to the disintegration of the so-called "nuclear family."

Adam Lanza (the Sandy Hook) shooter? Mother and no father or other adult male influence. He shot his mother first before going on his kill spree.

This shooter? Father died years ago, mother on her own. No adult male influence in the family unit. Mother died not long ago.

What's the rate of single-parent households in this country these days? Probably greater than it was in the 1960s, is my initial guess (I promise to research that further and report back any findings).

It seems to me that we as a society used to preach, and enforce, self-control rather than gun control. Do we even do so nowadays? Hard to tell, if you ask me.

So, instead of acting as stewards of a collective culture, we abrogate our responsibilities when it comes to kids and instead institute a multiplicity of gun laws an increasingly depraved citizenry -- which lacks the cultural governor switches we used to instill in each person -- won't obey. And, as I've said, short of complete and total confiscation of privately owned guns (not happening anytime in the foreseeable future, sir), what we're left with is pretty much the status quo. Lots of talk, little action and absolutely no desire to address what seems to be the true issues causing the rot that's leading to these school shootings.

I think it has simply become a cultural meme in the U.S. that largely started with Whitman that when you're pissed off at society or your work, etc. and want to get back at them that getting a gun and taking them out is one option.

Once it's out there, I don't think anyone knows how you stop it. It's the U.S. version of running amok.

Funniest thing about this entire debate JSA, I don't give a shit about gun rights, own an RPG or a fully automatic if you want, Personally I don't give a shit one way or another. But your banter, makes for some good entertainment.

It seems that since the mid-90s about every societal parameter you look at has been getting better (including juvenile crime). I have no idea how that correlates with the status of the nuclear family in the U.S.

Ok so the problem is the 3%'s who own 50% of the guns?

I actually agree with this Police Chief--it's a matter of priorities. With a criminal justice system that is already back logged and prisons that are already beyond capacity, it has not been a priority to go after those that have lied on their background checks. To me (and apparently those in law enforcement across the country) there is a huge difference between a felon who is actually in possession of a firearm, and one who lies on a background check. As Flynn stated, they make gun cases--lots of them. You hear it in the news all the time when felons are caught with firearms they get charged with unlawful possession and they do prison time. And there are firearm enhancements to sentences that get applied regularly.

So I don't think that we can just end the discussion on gun control by cherry-picking this one example and saying "But, but, we're not enforcing the laws on the books!"

is it? i don't know. interesting idea. but not mine.

Your own quote: " 3 percent of americans own 50 percent of america's guns. i think a lot of your crazies are going to be found in that cohort. "

That implies you think that's where the shooters come from. Thus, the problem. I think you're being a bit disingenuous and ignoring the other comments/questions I posed for good reason.

I provided evidence showing that not only is your supposition factually incorrect, it's most likely based off crap data.

Ok so the problem is the 3%'s who own 50% of the guns? It's rather interesting that that statistic comes up here.

First - Consider the source. Harvard / Northeastern. That's like someone asking you to trust an NRA study that says more guns makes us more safer (improper grammar is on purpose).

Why do you think that owning 17 guns makes a person more dangerous than a person owning 2?

A lie steadfastly stated is still a lie. You are lying.

Accurate statistics are readily available. They clearly show that in Australia gun control did reduce mass killings.

Take a look at Australian Institute of Criminology figures. Or Australian Bureau of Statistics. Look at the many studies by Australian universities. Even indulge your parochialism and just look at this Harvard University study (which also reviews other studies):

https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/...alia_spring_2011.pdf

tldr: the years following gun reform in Australia saw the largest % drop in homicides in a century.
"there is no evidence of substitution for suicides or homicides"
"The NFA (National Firearms Agreement) seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved."

What's interesting is in that article it states only about 20% of the guns out there were turned in or collected by the program. Not sure what to make of that, just something I didn't realize. Whenever I've heard anyone speak of it, it's made to sound like all the guns were surrendered. So if 80% of the guns are still out there, why the decrease in the numbers?

First, how many mass shootings are committed by felons? Has there been a single one? Certainly none of the school shootings involved felons. So, we are not discussing felons obtaining firearms. We are talking about individuals who went through the system and, in many cases, slipped through the cracks.

Second, a felon with a firearm is breaking the law. That person has already illegally obtained the firearm. So, if we ban firearms, will it stop that felon from getting the firearm? Of course not.

Third, let's focus on the topic at hand - mass shootings. What do these cases have in common? In nearly every case (quite possibly every case) while the person "technically" legally purchased the firearm, there was a reason it should have been denied or should have been questioned. What I mean by "technically legally purchased" is that they went through the proper channels to obtain the firearm, but, it likely should not have been obtained.

Florida School Shooting - shooter was under psychiatric care which should have prevented the sale of the firearm.

Texas church shooter - had a domestic abuse charge that should have prevented the sale of the firearm.

Las Vegas shooter - volume of purchase in a short time period should have set off red flags.

Sandy Hook shooter - mental health background should have prevented possession of firearm.

And so on and so on.

Look, I agree it is too each to obtain a firearm. I have never disputed that. In addition, I have repeatedly (I think this is now the 4th time in this thread alone) said in this and other threads that something akin to the CCW license process may be in order to get a license to be eligible to purchase a firearm. We can put all these rules and regulations in place, but, are we doing this to feel better or to be safer?

i would tend to trust what an australian says about his own country over what you and i say about his country. still, i'll venture a guess: australia as a country, as a culture, decided to stop reverencing guns.

i don't think that. i think a culture that causes someone to want to own 17 guns is a problem. do you own 17 shovels? 17 ladders? a gun is a tool. not an object of worship. what makes a gun an object of worship is its ability to destroy other humans.