« Ruminations - 14dec12 (updated) | Main | Only terrorists resist fiat money »

17 December 2012


Paul Emery

From above:

"A government that trusts its citizens would maximize the availability and prudent use of firearms in the land (e.g. Switzerland)"

Switzerland' some interesting details:
Would this be acceptable George from your view?
For expedience I used Wiki which of course can be challenged,

"Basically, the sale of automatic firearms, selective fire weapons and certain accessories such as sound suppressors ("silencers") is forbidden (as is the sale of certain disabled automatic firearms which have been identified as easily restored to fully automatic capability). The purchase of such items is however legal with a special permit issued by cantonal police. The issuance of such a permit requires additional requirements to be met, e.g. the possession of a specific gun locker.[citation needed]

"To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.

Guns may be transported in public as long as an appropriate justification is present. This means to transport a gun in public, the following requirements apply:

The ammunition must be separated from the gun, no ammunition in a magazine.
The transport has to be direct, i.e.:
For courses or exercises hosted by marksmanship, hunting or military organisations,
To an army warehouse and back,
To and from a holder of a valid arms trade permit,
To and from a specific event, i.e. gun shows.[8]

George Rebane

PaulE 228pm - That code forms a good basis for a predominantly mono-cultural society with a low crime rate. Most certainly it satisfies the par force condition. For the US, as a very multi-cultural society with no predominant culture, I would extend it to include liberal issuance of CCW permits.

It is also interesting to reflect on the Anders Breivik massacre in Norway, a country of about 5M people. There were over 70 people killed in a land with extremely strict gun laws. Pro rata, on population alone and assuming the deranged distribute equivalently, the US would have to experience over sixty such massacres to keep pace. The point is that deranged people and religious zealots (e.g. ragheads) will find ways to 'express themselves' in almost any environment that provides what we would deem an acceptable quality of life.

Paul Emery


Let me ask you for suggestions as to how such disasters can be averted? Is there any additional legislation you would propose?


How does one stop one deranged person to kill people in a free and open society?

How does one even suppose any guaranteed effective method for stopping one deranged person in a free and open society exists? There's about 300 million people in the USA and, I'd guess, about 150 million with below average mental stability.

Here's an interesting factoid for Paul:
"Connecticut Senate Bill 452 was proposed in February “to enhance the care and treatment of persons with psychiatric disabilities in both inpatient and outpatient settings.” But the bill was defeated in March, with opposition calling it “outrageously discriminatory.” The ACLU said the bill would “infringe on patients’ privacy rights by expanding [the circle of] who can medicate individuals without their consent.
Had the AOT bill been passed, it would have given the state the right to institutionalize a person who is mentally ill for treatment if the state has enough evidence to believe that the person could be a danger to himself or the community."

Regarding the Swiss law on the subject, bring it on, I can live with it. Please send me my fully automatic, selective fire Obama Assault Rifle and 24 rounds of ammo ASAP.

Paul Emery

Yeah Gregory

Judging from attitudes expressed in this blog it's likely that some of us would be institutionalized as crazy by those with opposing views if they had the means.

Seriously, it's a tough call to institutionalize or drug someone based on weird behavior. Do we need more mental health facilities, yes indeed but that's not the answer. I personally favor restrictions on assault rifles and weapons and that's likely to be a popular call next year. Will it help? Perhaps it will if it restricts accessibility to some degree from dangerous people.

Switzerland has strict rules about transporting guns that allow possession at home but not on the streets without due cause. The idea is to have an armed populace available as a militia if needed. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations, That's different than personal self defense or as a counter to government forces.

George Rebane

PaulE 344pm - By the law diminishing (probabilistic) returns, it will be impossible to avert such disasters with 100% reliability. Neither of us would want to live in a society wherein that might be made possible.

Acknowledging the beneficial impact of widespread legal weapons in society, I would suggest that the first step in a positive direction would be to have a more realistic and henceforth more comprehensive ability to identify, treat, and, if necessary institutionalize people the federal law labels as "mentally deficient".

Progress there would require overcoming some of the insane suits that the oft-misguided ACLU brings to bear that result in the certifiably insane having the same freedoms of action as those not so burdened (Gregory's 348pm addresses this also). A middle ground in such a more enlightened society would be designations of troubled people/kids whose presence and residences require special care in the ready-availability and storage of firearms. In short we must become a more discriminating citizenry, and walk away from wholesale laws and regulations that paint with the broad brush.

Your thoughts?

George Rebane

PaulE 432pm - Your assessment about the Swiss is effectively wrong. The Swiss most certainly carry military arms with great frequency as any short drive through Switzerland will confirm. The Swiss are a people who love shooting sports in which they participate with their true assault rifles. And don't believe for a moment that the Swiss affection for firearms does not include a centuries long distrust of governments degenerating to tyrannies. Recall that Switzerland does not have a central government to speak of, everything is done and controlled as locally as possible.

Paul Emery

George writes

"The Swiss most certainly carry military arms with great frequency as any short drive through Switzerland will confirm."

The minimal research I have done on the topic (Swiss Guns) differs from your view. From Wiki subject to correction. Feel free to update me if you have better information.

"Carrying guns

To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.

It is, however, quite common to see a person serving military service to be en route with his rifle.
Conditions for getting a Carrying Permit

There are three conditions:

fulfilling the conditions for buying a permit (see section below)
stating plausibly the need to carry firearms to protect oneself, other people, or real property from a specified danger
passing an examination proving both weapon handling skills and knowledge regarding lawful use of the weapon

The carrying permit remains valid for a term of five years (unless otherwise surrendered or revoked), and applies only to the type of firearm for which the permit was issued. Additional constraints may be invoked to modify any specific permit. Neither hunters nor game wardens require a carrying permit.[citation needed]
Transporting guns

Guns may be transported in public as long as an appropriate justification is present. This means to transport a gun in public, the following requirements apply:

The ammunition must be separated from the gun, no ammunition in a magazine.
The transport has to be direct, i.e.:
For courses or exercises hosted by marksmanship, hunting or military organisations,
To an army warehouse and back,
To and from a holder of a valid arms trade permit,
To and from a specific event, i.e. gun shows.[8]

Brad Croul

School principals and officials should be allowed guns just as airline pilots are allowed.

I don't think the 2nd amendment says what types of arms are allowed to be borne by the populace. And we have already said that machine guns, grenades, RPGs, etc. are not allowed without special permit. So, we have already started limiting our "right" to bear arms.

Assault weapons are only useful for killing/maiming multiple humans (or zombies) in fast succession, or hunting deer by the high beams of moving vehicles at night in rural neighborhoods.

Grow up and give up the glorified Rambo delusions already. Or,
get one of these and try some trap and skeet!



George Rebane

Re PaulE's 515pm which did not respond to my answer to his 344pm question, but simply repeated misleading assertions on Swiss firearms policy.

BradC 538pm - Given the low probability dangers to children in schools, it might make a lot of sense to keep appropriate firearms in rapid access locked (and effectively hidden/camouflaged) containers throughout a school, similarly to how fire extinguishers and first aid kits are available when needed. Teachers would receive appropriate training in firearms and use protocols. A thought worth pursuing.

Steve Frisch

I don't think I would have to go too far back on these threads to find posts calling teachers incompetent, greedy, under-trained, lazy, overpaid, public employees--or to find concern about arming park rangers and Department of Commerce police, due to creeping government powers. Now you want to issue them firearms and expect them to face down armed crazies in body armor? What would make you think they could do that if they can't even teach our children? Oh....wait...they did that unarmed and in the face of almost certain death at Sandy Hook.... I stand corrected!

George Rebane

Re SteveF's 629pm - 'Erect straw man, ignite same, stand back and enjoy the warm glow.'

Paul Emery


Exactly what assertions in my entry are incorrect? The video you linked was consistent with what I posted. It was very short on details. Can you provide me with more to support your view?

Steve Frisch

George what did I say that was inaccurate? These are not straw me. They are the facts, form these very pages. Many posters here have disparaged public employees, specifically teachers, in exactly the way I describe above. And many have pointed out that arming government employees was a creeping loss of liberty. I am merely pointing out the incredible inconsistency and hypocrisy of your positions.

Steve Frisch

oops, 'straw men".

George Rebane

PaulE 647pm - My carefully chosen word was 'misleading' not 'incorrect'. The overall purpose and tenor of your cut&paste is that in Switzerland it is difficult to possess and carry guns. This is not true. As discussed in the video, existing Swiss laws purposely make it easy to be in possession of a modern military weapon for a number of reasons, hunting not being one of them.

And having been to Switzerland a number of times, it is unusual to drive along a road and NOT see a Swiss riding, say, a bike or motorbike with an assault gun slung on his back. They are no doubt transiting between gun club, firing range, home, or ... . The point being that the Swiss are always armed and ready with multiple firearms along with a combat load of ammunition as required by law to be in the home. For centuries the Swiss have taken their freedoms seriously.

George Rebane

SteveF 659pm - you posted snark, and have little desire to discuss the topics I introduce on RR. I have made a detailed report and case (along with citations) about the unusual arming of multiple government departments/agencies. These don't denigrate government employees, other than the obvious incompetency of many teachers that have been the subject of national alarm. However, other commenters may not have been so generous.

You unfortunately have yet to display the discriminatory abilities to differentiate between the recent increase in armed federal agencies and my introduction of the notion of making firearms another piece of life-saving emergency equipment available to the school staff. In your case (as the record on these pages memorializes) snark rules, because all that eludes you is branded hypocracy. As long as you keep it civil, you are most welcome to keep exhibiting your values, mores, and reasoning powers to RR readers.

Paul Emery

Fair enough George. You can interpret what I said to be misleading if you like but it's the best I could find to any details of Swiss gun laws, far more thorough that the ra ra video you presented.

So here's a question for you. Do you think gun owners should be required to lock up their guns and be held responsible if they become available to non registered users through negligent security?

George Rebane

PaulE 928pm - Since guns are deadly weapons, they should be kept secure from any illegal use that would cause harm. However guns are secured, gun owners are already held responsible if they are used to cause harm by anyone (except if they are stolen in a criminal act). There is and should be no requirement to have a gun be used only by "registered users" for legal activities.

I notice that you have yet to answer my 440pm - it all seems to be the same ol' same ol' liberal inquisition here.

Paul Emery

I'll give it a go George

"Acknowledging the beneficial impact of widespread legal weapons in society, I would suggest that the first step in a positive direction would be to have a more realistic and henceforth more comprehensive ability to identify, treat, and, if necessary institutionalize people the federal law labels as "mentally deficient"."

Would that involve some kind of special white suit cops who could capture and incarcerate those someone designates as "crazy" ? What kind of judicial process do you propose to make that determination? It's ironic that Ronald Reagan as Governor cleared out our institutions of thousands that had been institutionalized by sending them home or back to the streets.

"Progress there would require overcoming some of the insane suits that the oft-misguided ACLU brings to bear that result in the certifiably insane having the same freedoms of action as those not so burdened (Gregory's 348pm addresses this also). A middle ground in such a more enlightened society would be designations of troubled people/kids whose presence and residences require special care in the ready-availability and storage of firearms."

Are you saying that there should be special storage accommodations in households with designated mentally unstable occupants? Sure, why not.

"In short we must become a more discriminating citizenry, and walk away from wholesale laws and regulations that paint with the broad brush."

What laws specifically do you refer to?

Douglas Keachie

How to do it? Simple, you, or a company you pay a premium to, posts a $1000 bond for each gun you buy, at the time of purchase. If you can present the weapon to your local sheriff one year later, the bond required drops by 20% for each year you can present it. If you "lose" it, if you can't show you've sold it to a legitimate dealer, you now owe the bonding company $1000 + whatever fees you agreed to. The $1,000 winds up in the victims fund. You WILL keep your gun LOCKED UP. You WILL NOT SELL it to some creep on some dark street. If you have to pay, you bet your sweet bippy you will not add to the problem. And if you "lost" it, you are prohibited from buying another one for one full year. You say it can't be done??? HA!

Oh, you want to by another gun? Cool, bring in and show your last five purchases to the local sheriff, first, and get a certificate of "Responsible Gun Owner and Retainer." Now you can buy another.

BTW, seems to be that I should be credited with suggesting locked containers for fire arms on campus in this blog first. Go back and find Greg's derisive remarks about watch towers containing exactly those kinds of cases, proposed by me.

Stolen guns should make no difference, you should still be responsible for any criminal acts. That way you'll go to the expense of making very secure safes in your vehicles as well as your residences and businesses. Oh, they got the drop on your and your CCW weapon became part of their spoils? T.S. You still lose the cash because of your incompetence. Next time hire professional body guards.

Douglas Keachie

Maybe you just aren't cut out to be the 007 of CCW-dom.

"But I'm a good person and have never screwed up! Why should I have to pay ?" Well, why should you have to buy liability insurance and uninsured motorist insurance to drive a car legally in California? The same principle is in play here, After five years with responsible ownership, you pay nothing. Try that with car insurance. 80% second year, 60% third year, 40% fourth year, 20% fifth year, 0% sixth year. In the meantime, the state has a resource for helping victims and their families, when bullets cause collateral damage to totally innocent bystanders who were minding their own business.

You should view it as a small sacrifice to make sure that those scamming the system and causing carnage go out of business, because they can no longer play games at gun shows and on street corners. Responsible gun owners need to take responsibility for the current terrorism our NRA supported gun law system has created. Who do you love more? The NRA, or the kids in your neighborhood school yard?

Steve Frisch

Seriously, a self made Taxonomy of Mass Death that places the US Civil War into a category of a "punitive" action?

I think that about says it all.

A United States Civil War based on an inherent flaw (slavery) in our original Constitution, exacerbated by a dynamic that encouraged two clearly different and competing economic and social systems with supporting civil governance structures to flourish on the same continent, sparked by a difference of perspective on the relative rights and responsibilities of the states vis a vis the federal system as defined in the Constitution, coupled with competition for expansion of those competing systems across the continent, is relegated in one simple categorization by Mr. Rebane as "punitive". Its not a Civil War, like Russia or Spain, which is defined as a war of competing factions that claim to represent the civil society of a nation (the historically accepted definition since first used in the English Civil War) it is a Punitive War, or a war of a dominant force within a nation punishing a minority faction. In other words it is "The War of Northern Aggression" or the "War of Southern Independence".

Yes, I think that about says it all.

It is hard to talk about the 'facts' when the 'facts' one side brings to the table are so biased, and clearly intended to enlist others in their bias through guile, that the premises must be challenged before the dialogue can begin.

That is not snark--its just the truth.

Ryan Mount

Has everyone had a chance to review the Justice Department's Quick Reference on Firearms?


Note, the above "cheat sheet" does NOT mention mental illness, but I did some digging and you'll find this from the same code directly following the code for illegal aliens:

"Act (21 U.S.C. 802));(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;"

It's pretty clear and a quick (5 minute) read. In a nutshell, if you break one of the laws, all of the provisions seem reasonable to me, you're going to jail for at least 5 years, and in most cases 10 years. This is just for illegal possession, not the actual conduct of a crime.

We really just need to enforce the laws we currently have. Or are we finally willing to admit that our government is incapable to enforcing the laws already on the books other than in a symbolic fashion?

Ryan Mount

BTW, for those of you with more time, you can read the the entire 18 USC Sec. 922 "Unlawful firearm acts" from 01/03/2012 here via this rather ugly URL:


Or we can just repeat what our favorite faction has told us via their talking points. Who needs source material when someone else can tell us what to think, eh?

Steve Frisch

Ryan, I would be the first to agree that part of the solution to reduction of gun violence may very well lie in enforcing laws already on the books. If that is the case with some laws then the question becomes how do we pay for it.

Ryan Mount

Well, I agree Steve. It's just like many (well, most) of the laws we already have on the books that go unenforced. Many (most) of the current ADA laws come to mind where the government has basically given up by allowing the enforcement to be conducted in civil courts by private citizens. Even when citizens attempt to adhere to the laws, they are often subject to citizen lawsuits. It's a shakedown. Just think about that for a minute. It's smells an awful lot like vigilante enforcement. Should we do that with firearms and allow enforcement in the form of civil suits? Should we sue Comcast for allowing pornography to be displayed on our kid's iPads?

Anyhow, regarding firearms, we either need to pour money into enforcement, and frankly who really wants more police/government spying on our every move (some do, I don't like those people), or we just need to amend the Constitution to more carefully define what is a reasonable firearm. Good luck with that last one. :-)

BTW, I do not own guns nor to I particularly like them. I am however, quite good with a baseball bat for those uninvited criminals wishing to explore my home.


Common sense cannot be created via law(s).

Of mandates and whatnot....

Don’t Despair: Remember Only 25% Of America Voted For Obama



Reminder: EVERY single law requires a government gun for enforcement. History warns us to be more fearful of a government with guns than a coward lunatic with guns.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

George Rebane

Re SteveF's 615am - I stand with those historians and political scientists who have the strong and narrow definition of 'civil war' as an intra-national war wherein two (or more) factions each seek to become the governing faction of the nation. That was not the case in the intra-national war of 1861-65. The war was misnamed a civil war for political purposes, primarily to garner northern support for it where many people saw it as 'Mr Lincoln's War'. (Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union. Whether that was constitutional or not is another matter.)

My taxonomy says nothing about America's tragic episode of slavery. But if that is all the critical purchase a liberal can have on any given post in RR, then, of course, it must be must be grasped.

Re RyanM's 625am - his point reinforces those made here before, and brings to more intense question why we should rush to put another dubious law on the books that serves no beneficial purpose, further limits individual freedoms, and endangers the Union.


How about universal military service on the Swiss or Israeli models. And, yes, girls are included. Right after high school. I leave it to the rest of you to figure out the many, many, good things that would result. L


Ryan, you might want to put a sign outside your home to inform any and all that it's a gun free zone. Be proud :)

Frisch, you were flinging mud the day of the massacre, just not here.

Paul writes "Do you think gun owners should be required to lock up their guns and be held responsible if they become available to non registered users through negligent security?". Being required to lock weapons away is tantamount to the law requiring they not be available for use and that's been found to be unconstitutional. And negligent storage is already criminalized; for example, if a child gains access to a firearm that has not been adequately secured and is caught with it. I don't think anyone here has any qualms with that law.

Douglas Keachie

Ignoring what I've posted, and still having no solutions of your own. Typical.

Douglas Keachie

"Don’t Despair: Remember Only 25% Of America Voted For Obama "

~ TheMikeyMcD | 18 December 2012 at 08:17 AM~

and even less voted for the Tea Party pro NRA anti gun control favorite.


"Ignoring what I've posted"

Nothing you've written of any substance has been ignored.


I, admittedly ignore AT LEAST 99% of DK's posts. I refuse to listen to hate driven agendas.

Douglas Keachie

Greg, our house, like yours, from the street, is invisible, and that was part of at least my choice in choosing the property. Of course, inside our house, via cameras, the street, yard, and gate are visible, and sensors call our attention, when necessary.

Ryan Mount

> Ryan, you might want to put a sign outside your home to inform any and all that it's a gun free zone. Be proud :)

Pffft. Ha. :-) I can do quite a bit of hurt with a 34" piece of hickory; maybe more. Besides, I'm a terrible shot. I can't even hit the toilet properly. (TMI?) Guns don't scare me. Dumb asses do. Maybe, I'll just sick one of the teenagers on an intruders. They're terrify them out of the house with requests for gas money.


There is no "solution" other than making sure bat-shit crazy people don't have guns. All that has to be done is enforce the current laws. We get a BOLD tag for that. Even the most staunch gun advocates agree that felons, the mentally ill, unsupervised children, illegal aliens and other mentioned in the Federal laws. For the most part.

The fact of the matter is some people don't like guns like they don't like gay marriage. It's irrational.

Ryan Mount

> Even the most staunch gun advocates agree that felons, the mentally ill, unsupervised children, illegal aliens and other mentioned in the Federal laws.

Sorry. That should read: Even the most staunch gun advocates agree that felons, the mentally ill, unsupervised children, illegal aliens and other mentioned in the Federal laws shouldn't have guns of any kind.

Douglas Keachie

The you advocate the government coming through all homes that might have mentally ill (teenagers) living in them and checking to see if everything is locked up tight, to prevent another Adam Lanzi case? How else would you, "enforce the laws?" such that nobody else gets shot?

Douglas Keachie

George, you've got to dump Greg's post too, as that what prompted mine. (Rebane deleted a comment of mine in re Greg @ Gregory | 18 December 2012 at 09:49 AM

Joe Koyote

"Unsupervised children" is the key. Don't arm the teachers. Children in schools are supervised so you could legally arm them. I had a shotgun and started hunting when I was seven and knew more about gun safety than most adults. Besides what kid wouldn't want to go to school packing a 45 on their hip. If little Johnnie gives you some lip or tries to steal your twinkies, blow him away like in the movies. There just aren't enough guns in the world and we should do everything we can to expand gun ownership. Besides guns don't kill people, bullets do. I had an Iraq war vet tell me that every household in Bagdad has at least one AK47, most more.. you can get them on the street for ten bucks. They don't seem to have any problems with gun violence do they? Think of the increase in gross domestic product. Instead of buying cheap Asian electronics Americans should focus their spending on cheap American assault rifles and handguns.

Douglas Keachie

Joe, let's see, if we can get just one more Sandy Hook, maybe we can beat 2005?


Ryan Mount


First off, I believe all teenagers are mentally ill to some degree.

Secondly, exactly. It ain't gonna happen because I think you could make both a 4th Amendment. So the (not sure what to call people of Doug's persuasion, but I don't think it's anti-gun) crowd that wants more regulation. They frankly believe this is in the spirit of the 2nd amendment, and that their form of "regulation" includes prohibition (I've chosen my words carefully here for effect) of certain classes of weapons.

Now, despite that everyone and God now knows I'm armed with nothing more than a piece of hickory, rabid teenagers and a couple of unfriendly dogs(forgot to mention that), I'm at a personal loss to understand why anyone would want military-ish grade weapons. I mean I understand their reasoning, which is that old George Mason "[t]o disarm the people...was the best and most effectual way to enslave them" line. So, OK. You weirdos. But you know what? There's some truth to Mason's comments. And If a gun owner is law-abiding, who cares? It's not an out-moded reality. (I guess it is if you're a Star Trek fan, but even they had phasers.) But it reveals a pathology that I think inflicts some thinkers: that the government is benevolent. It's not. No government in our brief human history has been. Just ask the people of Yemen about the USA's current benevolence.

But like I said, if we go out to the shooting range in Nevada City, it's best that you stand well-back. Like at 49er fun park. I'll join you later to hit the snot out of some baseballs.

Douglas Keachie

Place your bets. Who will win? The NRA or the general public? NRA's Facebook page was taken down immediately, by the NRA, and: http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/owner-of-nations-largest-gun-manufacturer-selling-company-because-of-sandy-hook-shooting/news/2012/12/18/56770

Joe Koyote

When will the insanity end? America is the most violent first world country on Earth. The problem is a culture where commerce is more important than the well being of the nation as a whole. It has already happened right here in our sleepy little town. When do we start caring about people's lives more than weapons manufacturers profits hidden under the guise of "freedom". The second amendment was about a citizens right to arm themselves (a well regulated militia) against a tyrannical government home and abroad. That 17th century notion no longer applies. We have a military funded by more money than than most all other nations combined, so we don't need a militia to protect us from foreign invasion. Us invading them is a much more likely scenario. There is no chance what-so-ever that an armed rebellion will take place if a dictator or other evil cadre ever gains power in America, so that argument is absurd as well. If we adhere to the failed policies of the past the violence will just escalate as the poor and crazy get hungrier and more desperate is a country where greed has replace compassion.

Todd Juvinall

I traveled over to the purple blog to see what the nuts from the left were saying about guns. I ran across this from Ben Emery. I now understand why he is such a political loser. Within his own statements he contradicts himself and his understanding of reality is non existent. Read it and have a good chuckle.

"Rebane and his blogoshere cohorts are so far off when it comes to understanding the actual vision or intent of the reasons/ purpose for the revolution and creation of the United States of America it is scary. The revolution was fought to establish a government that was derived by the consent of the governed not to continue being victims of insane and immoral foreign power. The Rebane’s of the world promote the idea of a nation without or with very little government intervention. This idea could be true if that what the majority of the governed wanted but throughout American history we have always moved towards more democracy not less until the TP congress of 2010 who received the lowest approval rating in American history at 10% or so. Check out this graph but again those who like the billionaires and TP vision might think this is a good thing. "

Paul Emery


You're not one to accuse anyone of being a political loser. With the exception of the House you haven't voted for a winner in a national election since Bush the Second. To educate our readers Todd was a political starlet in the early 80's who was soundly ko'd in the prelims when he tried for a bigger stage. That was about the time his real estate fortunes were slapped down by the Republican majority of the Board of Supervisors.

George Rebane

DougK 1054am - have deleted no comments here. (Did delete a thread discussing body parts on 'Ruminations - 14dec12')

Douglas Keachie

Oh an George, reality bites with the Zombie remark you also deleted, or were they one and the same?

Douglas Keachie

Then it didn't post. I will try again:

"Nothing you've written of any substance has been ignored.

Posted by: Gregory | 18 December 2012 at 09:49 AM "

Glad to see you are reading everything I write, Greg.

Ryan Mount

Regarding what Todd said.

First off, Ben is a decent person. I wish you two would stop with this back and forth. I also wish I was a foot taller. So there you go. What do you do when you run into each other at SPD? Anyhow, the point is, government intervention has not worked. What makes us think even more will be work more? Hey, we'll just super-size the laws. They're gonna have to amend the Constitution.

We. Need. To. Enforce. The. Current. Laws. Rather than legislating like Sally Struthers.

Anyhow, onto to Joe.


> When will the insanity end

Ooooo. Mr Kotter! I know! Answer: never. Maybe we should move to a safer place like Norway. No, wait...

> America is the most violent first world country on Earth.

Misleading. But it's convenient to pick a sample size, and then book end it with like brethren. But then we ignore all kinds of other kinds of things like our non-homogeneous population, etc.

Our homicide rate, for example is actually low and has been falling over the past few years. It's 4.2 people per, wait for it...100,000 people. Be glad we're not in Honduras where it's over 90/100K. South Korea is 2.6. Luxembourg is 2.5, which is ironically higher than Afghanistan at 2.4.*

> tyrannical government home and abroad. That 17th century notion no longer applies.

Stay away from my family and friends. But please take my teenagers. The US government is one of the most, if not the most dangerous governments in the world. Like all governments. See my comment about pathology above. And don't make me evoke Mr. Paul Emery's use of Native Americans to prove my point. Or recently African-Americans. Or even more recently, the LBGT community. Or Pakistani or Yemeni children. Or people who have no sense of humor.

> There is no chance what-so-ever that an armed rebellion will take place if a dictator or other evil cadre ever gains power in America

Again, please stay away from my family. This is frankly as whacky as Arch Conservatives who believe that the USA only does good with its military around the globe. Of course it's possible, that is a dictator could rise from Hollywood, Kansas or a Dr. Oz appearance. Probably more likely is a cadre of corporatism and crony capitalism enabled by a lazy and incompetent electorate.

* http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/Homicide_statistics2012.xls


Looks like JK is copying DK's style of logic. Absurdities.

"I'm at a personal loss to understand why anyone would want military-ish grade weapons" -Ryan

Why does anyone want to buy a 'Vette, when a Ford Focus is all anyone really needs? And in any case, these aren't "military-ish grade weapons". We don't send out US Army or Marine troops on combat missions with Bushmasters. It's a crippled version meant for civilians.


Todd, Ben's ideology requires individuals to be placed into 'classes' (Jews, middle class, rich, etc), government FORCE dictated by a mob, un elected central planners that destroy through the inflation tax, increased debt as a solution to debt, more spending as a solution to too much spending, government as deity... an ideology of sin based on pride/envy/hate run full course.

The progressives will point to corporatism, enabled by a too powerful government, as the problem while asking for bigger government as the solution.

We, those with a foundation of love, must continue to focus on individual liberty. We must point out the blessings of capitalism, choice, freedom.

Ryan Mount


I can make that Focus run real fast, BTW, like we used to do with a 327 in a Vega. However, for the record, I don't care if someone has mortars in their backyard, as long as they don't go off and kill/injure me or anyone else. But there's always that dumbass factor that I think should be considered with discussing the 2nd Amendment with regards to my liberties not to die from dumbassness. I have several friends (I do have friends) I know who owns an assortment of guns safely locked in their safes. They show them to me every time I come over. And they're neat, in their homes.

I still think it's weird having a faux assualt rifle. But that's a personal taste thing, like "I don't like spaghetti" more than a more objective assessment like, "Dr. Oz is destroying the minds of millions of unemployed couch potatoes, at the same time single-handedly keeping the Briar Patch in business."

Paul Emery


Todd, as a genetic Republican, needs your gentle lecture about liberty having supported the Patriot act, deficit spending, war in Iraq and any number of unconstitutional decisions during the reign of Bush II. As a Republicrat since conception he knows other way.

Todd Juvinall

I think Paul Emery has been snooting the funny plant smoke again. Paul, what you consider success and what I consider success are 180 degrees off. You resort to snaky personal attacks and I simply tell the truth about you and liberals in general. Since you have no common sense, I feel I am fighting the unarmed. What a hoot!


Ryan, LOL.

Paul, I sincerely hope I don't come off as lecturing anyone :). That being said, the scariest Republicans I know are the one's that ignore Reagan's spending, Bush's sellouts (Patriot Act, etc) and Bailouts (yes, it was under Bush that signed multiple stimulus acts in 2008 that went for GM, AIG, etc) and the fact that Bernanke was a Bush pick! Ugh. Damn it does feel like I'm lecturing, sorry y'all.

Douglas Keachie

Did Paul not tell the truth about your history in the political arena, Todd?

Todd Juvinall

All victories Keachie.

George Rebane

Gentlemen, stay on topic please. This one-on-one crap is more suited for other venues. And the 'he hit me first!' bullshit is really wearing.


Ryan, I never wanted a faux assault rifle either. I drove a rental Focus about 1000 miles last year... fine car. And 14 years ago I bought a Chevy Prizm (branded Toyota Corolla) on an employee discount chit (the last one a close relative was going to be getting) because the only other GM car available with a manual transmission was the Vette. Would have been a kick but better economy and performance on Nevada County's dirt roads was important to us.

BTW, I just heard a claim on the radio (Tom Sullivan show) that an adult has reported that the Colorado shooter had told her that he had fantasies about killing people.


George Rebane

Difficult for me to understand is the extraordinary concern many people have about being killed with a firearm. The probability of such a demise for the overwhelming fraction of Americans is vanishingly small; and when all Americans are considered, the chances are still less than that of being killed by lightning. Yet the unreasonably heightened fear is real for enough people that it should be addressed by ever newer laws – and politicians are more than willing to comply and build up their accounts for the next election.

We know from the historical record that none of these ‘gun laws’ have provided any permanent relief from the fear. As passed, each one is like applying a band-aid to an abrasion – it may give a bit of temporary relief, but does nothing whatsoever to protect its wearer from future abrasions. We also know from history that disarming the public does increase crime rates, and ultimately is a precursor to something more sinister that winds up killing untold numbers of then newly criminalized citizens.

Medical ‘accidents’ kill about 100K Americans each year in and out. That is the equivalent of a wide-body jetliner crashing every single day of the year. But because the deaths are distributed both in time and space, literally no one cares (least of all the lamestream). And every one of these deaths could arguably have been prevented – they were caused by the operation of the healthcare industry and not by any health problem of the patients, save that it subjected them to the tender mercies of that industry. We just let them die, consider it the cost of doing healthcare, and go on with our own business - and then we repeat it again next year.

For some reason such a stalwart tolerance for risk cannot be brought to bear on the diminishing rate of gun related deaths. And looking at how gun deaths break down, going hyper due to a recent multiple killing by a deranged gunman is, by any measure, also a deranged response. Clearly, maximizing the number of human lives saved in the longer term is not a consideration in any of these post-massacre ventilations. And we still think we can govern ourselves?

Paul Emery

Characterizing contributors as losers opens up a scrutiny of your own standing. Todd has branded me as a "loser" as well because I voted Libertarian in this election. The dismal record of his recent voting record therefore demands attention.

Keachie, Todd was rejected by the Repubs in his attempt for higher office. That much is history. I grant that he was a NC Supervisor for two terms.

Ryan Mount

Well, it's fear. And fear is a powerful motivator.

Maybe we have it bass-ackwards? Well sorta. Maybe our media (news/entertainment) is just making us more scared about guns and not actually more violent. That seems more sensible to me.

As mentioned yesterday, another 18 people standing on sidewalks minding their own business were killed today by crashing cars. Maybe if we made a series of horror car crash movies where the assailant drive into pedestrians we could ban cars? Or make pedestrians where helmets and body armor? Or maybe we just need to keep teenagers off the road until they're 27.

Douglas Keachie

Ryan and George both go for comparisons that are ridiculous. The entire economy is sadly dependent on 100 year old transportation technology, and three days with every car grounded would cause major mayhem in the food supply alone. Likewise suspend all medical care for three days and the carnage would be incredible.

Now lock up every private gun, legal and illegal, for three days and what happens to the general welfare? Nothing, or in fact, improved. They had a period recently in NYC in which no one got murdered for 18 hours, and that period was celebrated by the leaders in LE.

George Rebane

DougK 203pm - Another Keachie logic bomb, wow! Who, besides you, was recommending shutting down transportation or healthcare in response to their related death rates? But it definitely is you who is arguing for 'shutting down' the private possession of guns, and positing that that would improve general welfare. History is not your friend.

Douglas Keachie

I made no such effort George, to shut down the private ownership of guns. My latest posts are strictly about making sure guns stay in the hands of their legal owners. In fact, as I have pointed out, automatics are no more deadly on dispersed groups than semi auto, and in fact are probably less so. To cut down on the deaths from either, reduce the size of the magazines. I have three guns of my own and am looking into a fourth, plus assorted archery and air gun equipment. If you can afford a 50 calibre machine gun and the ammo that goes with it, fine by me. Just buy a big enough safe to keep it locked up.

Ryan Mount

This is not an apples to oranges thing. You and your friends and family, me, George and everyone else has a higher chance of dying from a falling asteroid than being a victim of gun violence in any given year.

- Chances in the USA of dying from a homicide: 2.4 per 100,000 people (note this includes all forms of homicide, not just gun violence so it's probably lower for gun-related violence)

- Chances of dying from a tsunami if you live on the coast: ~1 per 50,000 people (this is really a guess by people smarter than me)

- Chances of dying in a car accident: 1 in 6500

- The good news is, and this is weird, we actually have less a risk of dying from an asteroid at 1 in 500,000 people. It was 1 in 20,000 in 1990.

General violence has dropped significantly since the 1990s. The Freakonomics guys says its due to abortions. I find that that theory intriguing. I add that we're more hypersensitive to horrendous crimes do to the frankly sensation coverage in out media and entertainment. Which probably isn't a bad thing.

The point is there are dozens of things each day that can potentially kill us. It just so happens that guns seem to capture our someone perverted collective imaginations. But generally gun violence is down, as is all violent crime since the 1990s.


There's no there, there. But the media outlets make lots of money selling insurance ads.

Douglas Keachie

George, you are the one who picked the comparison to doctors, not me. Too bad for you if shutting them down causes far more deaths than shutting down guns, for a period of three days, or even worse, indefinitely. We it in your power to eliminate all hospitals and doctors in the country, or all guns except LE and the military, which would you choose? Which could the country survive without the easiest?

Ryan Mount

I got that wrong. In 1990 we were in more risk of dying from asteroids. Cars are still one the most dangerous thing in our culture.

Ryan Mount

[bangs head on table]. If you shut down guns, only the law-abiding people will shut them up. Criminals and crazy people do not care about laws. That's why they're criminals [and crazy people]. I'm pretty certain that the CT cretin didn't care about the gun laws.

As long as there's demand for something, humans are going to figure out how to get it and use it: Booze, the right to vote, drugs, guns, sex, Dr. Oz episodes.

And as I cited above, the fear over gun violence simply doesn't rationally match the statistics of other more deadly things. And if we do something like make bullets $1000/piece, capitalism will trump that in a black market almost over night. If we bond or insure weapons, then only law-abiding citizens, none of whom would ever do such a heinous act, will participate.

Paul Emery

This shows that the US has the 12th highest rate of deaths by guns in the world, at 9.20/100,000 just below South Africa. The UK, which has strict controls, has .025. Britain is defiantly multicultural so what is the explanation for the huge difference?

El Salvador 50.36 50.36 NA NA NA 2009 OAS 2011[1]
Jamaica 47.44 47.44 NA NA NA 2009 OAS 2011[1]
Honduras 46.70 46.70 NA NA NA 2007 OAS 2011[1]
Guatemala 38.52 38.52 NA NA NA 2009 OAS 2011[1]
Swaziland 37.16 37.16 NA NA NA 2004 UNODC 2006[1]
Colombia 28.11 27.10 0.87 0.14 NA 2009 UNODC 2011 [2]
Brazil 19.01 18.10 0.73 0.18 NA 2008 UNODC 2011[3]
Panama 12.92 12.92 NA NA NA 2010 OAS 2011[1]
Mexico 11.14 10.00 0.67 0.47 NA 2010 UNODC 2011[4]
Philippines 9.46 9.46 NA NA NA 2002 UNODC 2002[5]
South Africa 9.41 NA NA NA NA 2012 UNODC 2012[6] & Stats SA[7]
United States 9.20 3.7 5.5 0.27 NA 2008-2010 OAS 2012[8]


Paul Emery

It seems guns are a major health hazard
From Forbes Magazine

"Gun violence is a public health issue, and a big one. In the 10 years from 2000 through 2009, more than 298,000 people died from gunshots in the U.S., about 30,000 people a year. If you exclude natural causes of death and consider only deaths caused by injury, it is the second-leading cause of death over that time span; only car accidents (417,000) killed more people. (These numbers come from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)"


Ryan Mount

No. All homicide deaths, according to the UN is 4.2 per 100000 people. (see link I provided above to the UN) So even an amateur read would tell us that not all homicides are due to guns. Maybe 50%? 30? The old cruel joke goes like this: if you want to kill someone, run them over with your car.

A suicidal person, and let's be reasonable here, can easily find other methods. (Do I need to list them here?) Often, but not always, suicidal people have elaborate plans.

Regarding accidental discharges and manslaughter, I think there's a valid point there, but if we really want to be safer, we need to get rid of cars and Big Macs.

Douglas Keachie

Ryan, you and George included the whole enchilada on doctors and cars, and yet you want to exclude the criminals with guns from my plate. Why is my argument considered a la carte and you get the full meal? We are all obviously talking hypotheticals here, get a grip.

Well, Ryan, btw, if we are going to bother with car seats, why not gun safes? That's all I am encouraging.

George Rebane

RyanM 227pm - Actually, annual car deaths number now in the low 30K region compared to medical accidents killing about 100K.

And given the state of medicine, it would be a very interesting study to see what would happen to the national death rate were healthcare admittances denied for some short period of time. The metric would have to be carefully defined with regard to long term vs short term mortality.

It's almost impossible to debate the longer term effects of removing all guns from American society. One side sees social utopia (world peace, goodness, and light), the other is equally convinced of tyranny and revolution.

DougK 304pm - the use of gun safes has already been discussed here and in previous posts to the level of nausea. Everyone agrees that they should be used if there are no other ways of keeping guns out of wrong hands in a home.

Douglas Keachie

Now if I were truly draconian, I require every citizen to step forward with each and every gun they already own and get finger printed and DNA'd and pay the bond for each and every one. I'd be nice and give you 3 months to allow you to get rid of those you couldn't afford to keep, or maybe have a turn in program of your excess, to be returned to you after 5 years of successful retention of the ones you keep, no charge for storage. My program will very quickly dry up the supply of new guns into the illegal underground, and thus make it much harder to possess one illegally. Yours for safer playgrounds and classrooms. Did you learn yet the details of how Sandy hook was done? So much for locked doors, but they will stop some, so keep them.

Ryan Mount

First off, child car seats are a ruse except for kids under the age of one. There is no evidence that car seats actually save lives above, I believe, the age of 1 1/2 years of age. But there has been significant lobbying by the car seat industry over the years. Again, the ghost of Madison points and laughs at us. (Actually, apparently Madison had no sense of humor from my readings.)

I agree with mandatory gun safes, Doug. Although all of my responsible friends already use them. I even like the idea of yearly licenses and the fees to cover those. As well as bonds and insurance as you mention. So I agree with you. These all seem congruent with the second amendment's "well regulated" clause.

But that's not going to stop criminals from doing crimes. That a de facto, um, fact. It won't even slow them down. In fact, I'm willing to bet it will increase criminal gun behavior. Think: the 21st Amendment because we are creating an incentive for criminal activity.

I just think we're freaked out about the wrong things, because that's how we've been trained by our media.

Paul Emery


Do you have any documentation on the number of people killed by asteroids in the US?


Paul, "deaths by guns" includes suicides, and it's been well documented that guns are only a second order effect on suicide... in that a gun tends to result in a higher success rate. The main driver is the desire to off oneself in the first place.

Japan's violent death rate, murders and suicide, is higher than ours despite no guns to speak of in civilian hands, so they fling themselves off buildings, wade into the sea carrying their kids. All sorts of ways. Somehow, living in a society whose pressures end up with people killing themselves in large numbers seems more oppressive than what we have.

Douglas Keachie

Just placing anyone in the back seat improves their odds of surviving a wreck, and that where the car seats have to be by law. Every single kid picked up yesterday was in a car seat in the back seat, I know because I I after school pickup duty. BTW, every car came with a manila envelop with the kids name and room held up tpo the windshield so the five teachers supervising could see, and check, very good security at some of our local schools.
It may take time, but it will immediately cut down on straw man sales at the gun shows and shops. Every little bit helps.

Douglas Keachie

"DougK 304pm - the use of gun safes has already been discussed here and in previous posts to the level of nausea. Everyone agrees that they should be used if there are no other ways of keeping guns out of wrong hands in a home." ~George~

So make them de facto mandatory, that's all my plan does. Any house can be initially broken into, but hauling off a long gun safe is a real trick, without getting caught, especially if the access and very existence is well hidden.

Ryan Mount

Touche Paul. Sadly I don't. That was a guest-i-mate provided by a scientist. But that's not the point. The point is we have an irrational fear of guns based on things far more dangerous than firearms because, as I suspect, of the media and also because there are people who just don't like guns. I don't like guns. I also don't like the goat eyeballs I ate in Hyderabad.

An Anecdote. On Saturday, we were working on the teenager's car. We suspected a vacuum leak or an ignition issue. We slapped another carb on there, only to find no spark. So we test the fuel pump by letting it spray gas everywhere. No problem there. Then we sprayed ether into the carb. Nothing. So then my partner decided to test the spark from the plug on the block. I gently suggested that we should wait a few minutes for the ether and the gas to evaporate before testing. Which we thankfully did.

Should we ban ether too? Gasoline? Maybe I should have a license to work on cars? Or buy starter fluid? Certainly I could use a license with teenagers. Where can I get one of those?


There has not been any studies regarding the efficacy of child safety seats above the ages of 1 1/2 years. Start here:


But I'm happy to be proven wrong. I want to be wrong. It underscores what I was saying about our so-called benevolent government. (You'd think Progressives would jump all over this collusion with government and industry. Oh well) But more directly, how many people even question the efficacy of a child safety seat? Or do we just trust the government like the good sheeple we are, happily blowing $80+ dollars a year on a specious product?

George Rebane

Re DougK's 345pm - The progressive's solution to all social problems is more government intervention, especially through detailed diktats on what must used when and where, and by whom for which purpose, and the denial of same for more detailed uses not authorized. That is not a society or form of governance under which at least half the country wants to live. And more from the other half would join once they discovered the full glory of government control in the brave new world.

Such prescriptions, as exampled here with respect to gun control, deny the legal use of guns to millions of Americans without a shred of evidence that any beneficial purpose would be served. But requiring someone to prove citizenship with easily obtained government issued IDs before voting is seen as prima facie evidence of returning to Jim Crow laws.

Douglas Keachie

Ryan, nothing works very well above 35 mph, but center position back seat is the best spot to be in, and if positioning the kids there by law in such a way that the parent can't make changes during a traffic stop saves lives, let's keep on doing it.

Ryan Mount

I don't care if car seats work or not. I only care about getting a ticket from a Cop. My point is, as it has been, is we're not using our nuggets anymore. We enjoy being told what to do. In fact, we crave that. John Donne, my favorite Renaissance poet, often wrote about how we all want to secretly be slaves. Maybe he was right.

So guns are killing all children as well as unfastened child safety seats. It's all irrational.

Maybe it's not like 1984, but more like the film the Matrix, but with comfy child safety seats and hot-coffee lawsuits aimed McDonalds. We all feel safer now. Feeling is more important. Goat eyeballs, not so much.

Paul Emery

Let's have a discussion if the shooting last week would have had far less fatalities if the types of guns available to the shooter would not have been semi automatic. For purposes of discussion lets say they were manual action six bullet cartridge. I contend the fatalities would have been far less and the diminished loss of life in those situations justifies changes in gun laws. There you have it from my perspective.

Douglas Keachie

The is no prescription on my part George, just a bit of encouraging of common sense.

"I buy gun. I run risk of losing $1000 and penalties to bond company if I don't hang onto it. Therefore, what to do, what to do?

Oh, BioID safe in hidden false closet. Good idea, I'll try that method."

I propose no laws concerning HOW a person hangs onto their guns, or even if they have to make any effort to do so at all. I just have consequences built in so that IF a person loses a gun, they pay bigtime. And, BTW:


Ryan Mount

> I contend the fatalities would have been far less and the diminished loss of life in those situations justifies changes in gun laws.

Fine, just take the god-damn things away. ( I really think that's impossible now) But anyway, what if he build a homemade explosive? Plenty of 13 year old boys experiment with blowing crap up. And now you can learn to make an effective pipe bomb right on the Internet with PVC pipes. Suddenly whacked-out CT cretin boy has 4 pipe bombs and two legal hand guns.

Or forget that, Paul. Let's use the NYC soda ban metaphor. You just buy 4, 16oz sodas at the movie theater. CT heathen simply just brings in 6 handguns with him.

Paul Emery

IN this situation I think it would have made a difference but I suppose you can say that's a hunch. The expediency of having access so such weapons could well have exacerbated the situation and enabled it to happen. There will be much public discussion on this topic and in my view will shift significant public opinion on the issue.

Ryan Mount

It's speculation, not a hunch. The issue continues to be not access to the weapons, but the state of mental health care and law enforcement in this country. We have ostensibly neither. Only criminals and the mentally ill do these things.

But I also think, as horrible and despicable as the most recent tragedies are, they're tempest in teapots compared to other nasty things.

How many kids have died from easily preventable Malaria* today? Not here in the USA. So no matter. From drone attacks? There's certainly not an app for that.**



Todd Juvinall

Tom Sullivan reported a shooter was stopped by a off duty woman cop at a theater in San Antonio last week. She was acting as a security guard (off duty). How many people were saved? We will of course never know. Maybe PaulE could get a part time job at the Sierra Cinemas and stand guard there to help.

Paul Emery

I already have a job Todd. Do you?

Todd Juvinall

Independently wealthy PaulE. I am the luckiest fellow I know.

Ryan Mount

This conversation isn't going to end well.

Can we talk about annoying teenagers instead? It would fit well with the this latest Sierra Cinema comment.


Paul, do you (an assumed proponent, acquirer and user of an herb that is Federally illegal) believe that additional laws will decrease the frequency or magnitude of future massacres via gun(s)?

Ryan, I have agreed time and time again with your reasoning (and appreciated your humor too). RU on Twitter?


Asking for more laws to protect 'us' from an unpredictable situation (i.e. pure evil) places too much faith in government. It is not already illegal to kill? Do we assume that pure evil is lazy ("I can't find automatic weapons so I guess I will skip my plans for today and continue watching Dr. Oz- h/t Mount)?

Do we ignore the FACT that 'gun banned' sub-sections of society (i.e. Chicago) have a higher gun murder rate than open carry sub-sections of society (around the globe)?
Chicago, pop. 2.6 million. Iowa, pop. 3.1 million. More murders in Chicago since Jan 1, 2012 than in Iowa since Jan 1, 2002.

Do we pad our stats with gun assisted suicides?

Paul Emery


I believe in this situation guns with less firepower likely would have let do less fatalities. Of course I can't prove that but it's a realistic speculation. I have worked with mentally difficult persons in the past and many times they are delusional and spontaneous.

The comments to this entry are closed.