Gun control, which side wins?

[MigL]

Yes, I would have a problem with four guns. But that's me. I had to wait a year and a half for the police to come and get a prohibited ( very short barrel/concealable,  22 semi-auto, Mauser,, probably last fired in the 50s ), that I found after my dad passed. Have no idea how he got it through customs when we came to Canada.

But I do know some very responsible gun owners.

Biggest problem I have with multiple gun ownership; If some of these guns go missing/stolen and are not registered in any way, are they not resold on the streets to criminals/gang bangers and used to commit crimes/murders ?
Just the spill-over of American unregistered guns being re-sold in Canada is enough to cause gun related problems in cities like Toronto.

[StringJunky]

34 minutes ago, MigL said:

I don't know, Stringy...
Does that make the problem appear bigger than it actually is ?
Or does it make it appear smaller ?
( why does any one need so many guns ??? )

When trying to envisage the scale of a problem it can help to look at it in a different way, so that it doesn't seem so insurmountable. What iNow was focussing on, and he acknowledged, was the number of guns, but those are not the problem, it's the people that own them. Quantitatively, the real numbers at issue is the no. of guns/number of gun owners, which is far too high. In essence, yes, I'm trying to make the problem look smaller so that it is more conceptually manageable and, possibly, solvable.

Edited March 8, 2018 by StringJunky

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

In some ways, divesting could be the wrong move. Their opinions likely hold more sway when they remain shareholders.

I agree, large shares holder can influence company. I even said it right above the post you quoted.

But it's direct conflict of interest if you own shares of weapon manufacturer, and at the same time you're pacifist (even indirectly, through investment and retirement funds).. From point of view of investor, you are interested in as largest revenue as possible from investment and steady income with expectable dividend.. and it won't come without production of guns and/or change of profile of the company. In other words management which wouldn't try to increase their profits would be working against interest of company (which is considered illegal).

Edited March 8, 2018 by Sensei

[StringJunky]

22 minutes ago, Sensei said:

I agree, large shares holder can influence company. I even said it right above the post you quoted.

But it's direct conflict of interest if you own shares of weapon manufacturer, and at the same time you're pacifist (even indirectly, through investment and retirement funds).. From point of view of investor, you are interested in as largest revenue as possible from investment and steady income with expectable dividend.. and it won't come without production of guns and/or change of profile of the company. In other words management which wouldn't try to increase their profits would be working against interest of company (which is considered illegal).

So, a controlling shareholder can't destroy a company, if they wish? That's a shame in this particular circumstance.

[Ten oz]

29 minutes ago, MigL said:

Yes, I would have a problem with four guns. But that's me. I had to wait a year and a half for the police to come and get a prohibited ( very short barrel/concealable,  22 semi-auto, Mauser,, probably last fired in the 50s ), that I found after my dad passed. Have no idea how he got it through customs when we came to Canada.

But I do know some very responsible gun owners.

Biggest problem I have with multiple gun ownership; If some of these guns go missing/stolen and are not registered in any way, are they not resold on the streets to criminals/gang bangers and used to commit crimes/murders ?
Just the spill-over of American unregistered guns being re-sold in Canada is enough to cause gun related problems in cities like Toronto.

Gun laws have been so lax for so long and gun ownership conflated with patriotism (in some circles) for so long that 4 guns really doesn't seem like much. I personally know people with seemingly full armories at there homes. I personally think it is crazy. It has taken a decade of debate and numerous mass shooting to even get to a point where large portions of the population are questioning the need for military grade assault weapons in their homes. 

[Sensei]

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

So, a controlling shareholder can't destroy a company, if they wish? That's a shame in this particular circumstance.

When it's done by management/directors it's called here "operation to the detriment of the company".

It can have various forms e.g. signing of unfavorable contract that will cause lost of company money and/or company property (usually it's connected to taking bribe for doing it).

I believe so it's prosecuted from private complaint. One of shareholders must be feeling ripped off.

So, if you're the only owner of company, it does not apply.

 

 

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, Sensei said:

When it's done by management/directors it's called here "operation to the detriment of the company".

It can have various forms e.g. signing of unfavorable contract that will cause lost of company money and/or company property (usually it's connected to taking bribe for doing it).

I believe so it's prosecuted from private complaint. One of shareholders must be feeling ripped off.

So, if you're the only owner of company, it does not apply.

 

 

Just got to get all the shares.... and then commit financial hara-kiri.

Edited March 8, 2018 by StringJunky

[Strange]

41 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

So, a controlling shareholder can't destroy a company, if they wish?

I'm quite sure there is no reason you couldn't buy a company and then just wind it up. It would be considered foolish, but I can't see how it could be considered illegal.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

I'm quite sure there is no reason you couldn't buy a company and then just wind it up. It would be considered foolish, but I can't see how it could be considered illegal.

For those it would benefit, it would be an altruistic act.

[Strange]

As a result of the activism of the Parkland students there are now more than 840 marches taking place around the world tomorrow to call for better control of guns in the USA: https://marchforourlives.com

It does look like this time it might be different...

And in case anyone thinks the NRA might have got away with it if it weren't for those pesky kids...

Veterans for Gun Reform: https://wepresent.wetransfer.com/story/veterans-for-gun-reform/

[Strange]

The US edition of The Guardian has invited students from the "Eagle Eye" news magazine at Marjory Stoneman Douglas School to guest edit the paper for the day: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/series/parkland-student-takeover

[Area54]

Gun Control. Which side wins?

I have not read the entire thread so someone else may already have said this: the side with the most guns.

 

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Gun Control. Which side wins?

I have not read the entire thread so someone else may already have said this: the side with the most guns.

 

Most martyrs would disagree... 

[Area54]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Most martyrs would disagree... 

1. Since they are martyrs they can neither agree, nor disagree.

2. Statistically, do you have evidence that more martyrs have enabled victory for their viewpoint than not?

3. I intended that guns could be taken metaphorically as well as literally, and that the ambiguity of that dichotomy would say something significant about the issue; that significance being left to the reader to create.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Area54 said:

1. Since they are martyrs they can neither agree, nor disagree.

 

 

LOL, OK I concede that point.

8 minutes ago, Area54 said:

2. Statistically, do you have evidence that more martyrs have enabled victory for their viewpoint than not?

Well, history suggests more guns doesn't lead to victory...

[Strange]

If we take "guns" to include more metaphorical weapons then I think there may be a sea change happening where the survivors are winning through their skilled use of rhetoric, social media and protest.

"The pen is mightier than the sword". Although, in this case, it may be more a case of Twitter being more powerful than bribes lobbying.

[Area54]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

LOL, OK I concede that point.

Well, history suggests more guns doesn't lead to victory...

I was in a very metaphorical mood. By more I also meant better, more effectively applied, more strategically targeted, etc.

But on the literal front, more guns allowed the Russians to win WWII in Europe. Doubtless there are many more examples.

[dimreepr]

Just now, Area54 said:

I was in a very metaphorical mood. By more I also meant better, more effectively applied, more strategically targeted, etc.

But on the literal front, more guns allowed the Russians to win WWII in Europe. Doubtless there are many more examples.

History would suggest otherwise... India, America, South Africa etc...

Afganistan, for example, every nation that sought to subjugate them had more/better guns ...

[OldChemE]

While I am coming very, very late to this thread, I notice the discussion bouncing back and forth on the question of what might be different about the US relative to other countries.  How about entertainment??  I haven't researched in detail, but it seems to me that gun toting and shooting are high on the list of prominent TV programs and movies.  Much more blood and gore than I recall from my youth.  Video games, as well, come to mind (such as "Call of Duty").  Could it be that we have an increasing gun problem in the US also because we are making killing less upsetting?  Could it be that we are becoming desensitized to the blood, gore and horror of taking lives?  Could this be leading to a change in attitude of people with borderline attitudes being more willing to kill for the fun of it?

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, OldChemE said:

While I am coming very, very late to this thread, I notice the discussion bouncing back and forth on the question of what might be different about the US relative to other countries.  How about entertainment??  I haven't researched in detail, but it seems to me that gun toting and shooting are high on the list of prominent TV programs and movies.  Much more blood and gore than I recall from my youth.  Video games, as well, come to mind (such as "Call of Duty").  Could it be that we have an increasing gun problem in the US also because we are making killing less upsetting?  Could it be that we are becoming desensitized to the blood, gore and horror of taking lives?  Could this be leading to a change in attitude of people with borderline attitudes being more willing to kill for the fun of it?

People don't kill for fun...

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, OldChemE said:

While I am coming very, very late to this thread, I notice the discussion bouncing back and forth on the question of what might be different about the US relative to other countries.  How about entertainment??  I haven't researched in detail, but it seems to me that gun toting and shooting are high on the list of prominent TV programs and movies.  Much more blood and gore than I recall from my youth.  Video games, as well, come to mind (such as "Call of Duty").  Could it be that we have an increasing gun problem in the US also because we are making killing less upsetting?  Could it be that we are becoming desensitized to the blood, gore and horror of taking lives?  Could this be leading to a change in attitude of people with borderline attitudes being more willing to kill for the fun of it?

Many other countries play those games and watch those same movies though. And produce their own. So I don't think that is a significant difference.

But it might contribute to the willingness/acceptability (in some people's minds) of reaching for a gun as a solution to a problem. The difference is that, in most other countries, you can't reach for a gun.

[iNow]

Essentially every study conducted repeatedly debunks the suggestion that the US sees more gun deaths due to entertainment, movies, or video games. 

If those mattered, Japan would be far more violent than the US. 

The problem here is guns. Too damned many of them. So many that even immediate shutdown of all sales would have little net effect on deaths. 

No need to invent imaginary explanations. The root cause is clear. It’s not entertainment. US entertainment habits are not markedly different from those in other nations. 

[OldChemE]

Really??  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170411085742.htm

 

Cross-cultural study strengthens link between media violence, aggressive behavior

Date:

April 11, 2017

Source:

Iowa State University

Summary:

Media violence affects aggressive behavior, compelling evidence demonstrates. This first-of-its-kind study, conducted in seven different countries, confirms six decades of research showing the effect is the same, regardless of culture.

[iNow]

Yes, really. We’re talking about guns. 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180116131317.htm

No evidence to support link between violent video games and behavior

Date:

January 16, 2018

Source:

University of York

Summary:

Researchers have found no evidence to support the theory that video games make players more violent.

Edited March 24, 2018 by iNow

[CharonY]

Yet another article. Mostly a rehash of other points, but  a decent read.

Quote

[...]

2) The problem is guns, not mental illness

Supporters of gun rights look at America’s high levels of gun violence and argue that guns are not the problem. They point to other issues, from violence in video games and moviesto the supposed breakdown of the traditional family. [...]

Instead, the US appears to have more lethal violence — and that’s driven in large part by the prevalence of guns.