Gun Control/Gun Violence in the US

[CassinoChips]

I claimed that your argument "I have never been a victim of crime, so nobody needs guns" is wrong.

Except I never said that. What I said was that my experience counters your claim that gun ownership prevents violent crime. I readily admit that a gun can act as a deterrent to crime on micro level. However, on a macro level, the statistics show that higher rates of gun ownership leads to more instances of crimes facilitated by the use of guns.

 

[spoonyrogdrumps]

I wasn't going to add more to this thread. But, since Shenorai gave me negative rep based on my comment and some other good comments by others namely Cassino, I wanted to say a little more.
Giving me negative rep for not wanting a gun and wishing that guns would be destroyed is a little presumptuous. It also shows that you are biased to your side of the argument without giving decent educated facts or statistics.
I gave you negative rep in return. Guns and gun control is a big discussion. Many people who are highly educated in various areas have written and debated guns and the control of it. I respect a lot of what Cassino says. I respect people who are educated because they tend to be well-rounded. I'm not saying that Shenorai or others aren't, but without pointing anyone out, some comments lack educated points of view.
This is about gun control in the US. It is true that some people who are religious are against guns, but being religious isn't necessarily the only factor. You can be religious and not know what scripture says. Some religions are however more disciplined in their faith and material. America is a young nation. Black powder or gun powder was invented by the Chinese in the 9th century. There is debate as to whether it was an accident, used for fireworks, to create a potion for immortality or fend off evil spirits. Contrary to popular belief this gun-powder was eventually used to kill people in war and defense, not for hunting. Using guns for hunting didn't come till later. Early gun-powder weapons were made to kill people for war.

It is in the constitution, and people have a right to bear arms. I understand that, but it doesn't change the educated, theological, and psychological basis that having guns in this world is not good for Americans or the rest of the world. America has a free market but it's not the highest educated country.

I have a bachelor's degree in business administration, a masters in history, and a doctoral in psychology. I have been educated from a top-rated university, tested with an above average IQ, and worked hard.
I could type many essays and thesis to support these facts but I just simply don't have the time.
I don't want to debate and definitely don't want to argue about guns and gun control in America.
I merely want to give some background as to why I don't like guns and feel that the world would be better off without them.
Humans in their most basic nature are prone to acts of violence, vengeance, greed, lust. You name it.
We can learn some things from the highly educated octogenarians that came before us and move forward in a civilized manner.

 

[Ultimaja]

Except I never said that. What I said was that my experience counters your claim that gun ownership prevents violent crime. I readily admit that a gun can act as a deterrent to crime on micro level. However, on a macro level, the statistics show that higher rates of gun ownership leads to more instances of crimes facilitated by the use of guns.

Guns save lives. It's a fact.
Downplaying that fact is ridiculous, something you wouldn't do after actually having an experience where a gun saved you or a loved one. That's never happened to you, so it's just 'meh'.

That's part of the reason why I don't care for the UK's nonsense. The fact that you all are straight up gun-free and yet still have a murder rate higher then certain countries where guns are basically a third arm- speaks for itself.

Statistics can say whatever they want, but common sense tells me that a gun-free zone doesn't keep one from being a victim. In fact, there's something mass shootings typically have in common_

I believe in personal liberty, you believe in population control.
Over here, if it isn't personal liberty, it is a step to tyranny. That is what American literature dictates, and of course that doesn't 'jive' with the UK because, go figure.. it's the UK. In other words there is a reason why out of everybody, it's the Brits trying to preach to America, who think they are so much better then America, and so on.
Weren't good enough to claim this plot of land though. Lots and lots of guns made sure of that.

 

[CassinoChips]

Guns save lives. It's a fact.
Downplaying that fact is ridiculous, something you wouldn't do after actually having an experience where a gun saved you or a loved one. That's never happened to you, so it's just 'meh'.

I'm pretty sure I said I readily admit that guns are effective for individual defense. That, however, doesn't excuse the fact that guns also are a major reason that people become victims.

That's part of the reason why I don't care for the UK's nonsense. The fact that you all are straight up gun-free and yet still have a murder rate higher then certain countries where guns are basically a third arm- speaks for itself.

Who is "you all"?

Also, this goes here:

You see how the US has a murder rate 4 times higher than the UK? And 16 times higher than Japan? That means you're wrong.

Statistics can say whatever they want, but common sense tells me that a gun-free zone doesn't keep one from being a victim. In fact, there's something mass shootings typically have in common_

Common sense tells me that most murders in the US are committed by using a firearm. So get rid of the guns.

I believe in personal liberty, you believe in population control.

No, I believe in the personal liberty of not being shot.

Over here, if it isn't personal liberty, it is a step to tyranny.

Over where?

"A step to tyranny" is conservative paranoia.

That is what American literature dictates, and of course that doesn't 'jive' with the UK because, go figure.. it's the UK. In other words there is a reason why out of everybody, it's the Brits trying to preach to America, who think they are so much better then America, and so on.
Weren't good enough to claim this plot of land though. Lots and lots of guns made sure of that.

Actually, it's primarily Americans preaching to America, because we're sick of people being killed by guns.

And the Brits did claim this plot of land for about 200 years. That's why we speak English. But you know what the primary weapon used by American militia during the Revolution was? The Brown Bess, the mass produced standard issue musket of the British army. So British guns won American independence.

Moreover, that was during a war. If you're fighting in a war, go ahead and use a gun. I'm guessing if you're posting on this forum though, that you're not fighting a war.

 

[CassinoChips]

It should be left for each state to decide. If one state wants to ban certain guns (even though the majority don't understand the difference between any gun) then that's what was voted on by the people. However, if a state chooses to keep said guns then that is what was voted on. It should never be an issue where a President can decide something like that.

State level is at least more fair than that.

I actually agree with you on this, more or less. The problem is that because of the Supremacy Clause, the federal statute trumps any state law. And the federal statute in this case is the 2nd Amendment. So until that is repealed or altered, it can't be left up to the states.

The fact is, crime rates still exist in the UK. And crime still exists in every country, despite what gun laws they have. So instead of good and bad citizens owning guns, now it's just the murderers that can do anything about it. I'd prefer to be able to protect myself when I'm walking down my country-back roads (in order to get to my job) and Randy from down the street decides to come and rape me after drinking a little too much. Because sadly, my rape whistle won't do too damn much when I'm the only person around for 10 - 20 miles.

No one is denying gun crimes, we just want everyone to realize guns are something that also do a lot of good, too. We already have plenty of Gun regulation laws, we should focus on actually making those regulations work before everyone says we need more.

And no one is denying that guns provide a means of self-defense. I've said that three times now in this thread alone. We need standardized gun regulations that are in effect from state to state. I shouldn't be able to go to Virginia and buy a gun that I would be precluded from buying by law in North Carolina.

Even Obama knows gun ownership is the only way to stop a oppressive government, look how many guns he gave the Syrian rebels!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/w...-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/w...rms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all
http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/09...rorism-rule-to-give-weapons-to-syrian-rebels/

I guess Obama is a conservative paranoid, too! And so are all of those Syrian citizens! They definitely were not living under a tyrant.

Again, they're fighting a war. Against a dictatorial regime. Little bit different. And that's a far cry from thinking that a democratically elected government is going to suddenly morph into an oppressive tyranny. Thinking it's going to happen in the United States, when it has never even come close to happening, is paranoia.

So it's not just Conservatives.

It's almost exclusively conservatives.

The fact is, liberals have no idea if your government won't turn into a tyrannical regime. Liberals have about just as much proof as religious people do about God's existence. Which is, none.

You're right. But in the dearth of evidence of something's existence, one should not assume that thing's existence. That's paranoia.

Liberals expect the entire world to believe that no government will ever turn on the people, that it won't happen in well-established countries. History says otherwise.

Really? Can you quote an example from the developed world?

And every time a dictator turns on his people, it proves this "paranoia" isn't really as impossible as the majority of Liberals say it is, it's just a matter of time.

Well, when we elect a dictator, then I'll worry.

The object here is to be able to stop said tyrant government before they round up millions of people and imprison or kill them for whatever reason.

Hate to break it to you, but have you seen some of the toys our military has? They don't even have to leave the office to kill you. If they turn on us, your piddly AR-15 is basically useless.

So until the useful idiots of the country can make a time machine and travel into the future long enough to come back and assure me and many others that our children, or their children, won't ever face a tyrant leader trying to kill them because of their race, sex, or political affiliation, they have no proof that this is merely "paranoia". In fact, after what History has shown us, saying something like that is kind of naive.

It's much more fun to live outside the bunker.

 

[CassinoChips]

Because democratically elected governments have never gone sour before.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/s...erals-shouldnt-cheer-the-egyptian-armys-coup/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/s...erals-shouldnt-cheer-the-egyptian-armys-coup/

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/3/11/libyan-prime-ministeroustedbyparliament.html

http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/in-venezuela-the-contradictions-of-chavezs-politics/


Clearly, this is paranoia.

Comparing the United States, which has 250 years of stable democracy, to Egypt or Libya, which have 2 years of unstable democracy, is disingenuous at best.

Yes, clearly Executive Order 9066 does not exist. That, indeed, falls into the category of 'tyranny'.

That's racism, not tyranny.

Germany and Russia during WWII. Just because it happened in the 30s & 40's doesn't mean it wasn't a tyrannical regime in a 'developed' world.

Russia was a Communist country then. Germany was a Fascist dictatorship. Neither were democracies.

when we elect a dictator
when we elect a dictator
when we elect a dictator
when we elect a dictator
when we elect a dictator
when we elect a dictator
we elect a dictator
elect a dictator
e l e c t
ʇ ɔ ǝ ן ǝ


Nobody 'elects' someone knowing that they are an oppressive dictator. That whole icky dictator-thing starts to rear its ugly head after already being appointed leader for other reasons.

That's pretty much my point. It won't happen in the United States because our system is stable enough to prevent it.

So what about those Liberals? Are they paranoid? I wonder... if those liberals believe this, does it mean they're wrong about everything else, too?

If they're paranoid about the government taking over, etc., then yes, they are paranoid. Lunacy isn't party-specific.

It has existed, though. Are you willfully taking the blue pill in regards to the entire 20th and 21st century's dictatorships... or?

It's never existed in the US. It's never existed in an otherwise stable democracy in the developed world. I don't see black helicopters, sorry.

Yes, I am fully aware of that. I was preaching about that back when Obama murdered a 16 year old U.S. citizen.
Hence why I am fearful of this man.

Inexcusable. But that's a far cry from the government oppressing the entire country.

 

[Ultimaja]

I'm pretty sure I said I readily admit that guns are effective for individual defense. That, however, doesn't excuse the fact that guns also are a major reason that people become victims.

But it does. Nobody should have to die a victim because people don't want to protect themselves and that's the bottom line.

What gun control sounds like to me:
Death should not be limited to people who refuse to protect themselves, it should equally go to those who aren't naive.

Also, this goes here:

You see how the US has a murder rate 4 times higher than the UK? And 16 times higher than Japan? That means you're wrong.

Must be from a pro-gun control source, God knows who else would make such a worshipful stat.
*All the gun controlled countries are low, and all the others high. *

It must be on purpose that they left out Switzerland's 0.7, which may as well have a gun as it's flag, or Korea's staggering 15 even though it is illegal to own a gun there unless one is an officer.

Common sense tells me that most murders in the US are committed by using a firearm. So get rid of the guns.

Common sense tells me that if you 'got rid of the guns' in America, you must be God because that's the only way you're not going to get murdered in attempting to do so.

You fail to understand the concept of a free people, you all do. Part of that is to be able to say "Hell no". You don't control our speech, religion, values, virtues, protections, etc.
The very fact that the UK could so easily just take guns away speaks for itself.

No, I believe in the personal liberty of not being shot.

As long as your not one of those unfortunate people who would carry a gun if it weren't illegal, and a criminal mows them down.

It should be standard procedure for anti-gun advocates to walk through the ghetto, hop on a lie detector test and be asked if you would have felt better with a pistol.
Then they couldn't no longer lie to themselves. It's sort of disturbing, actually.

"A step to tyranny" is conservative paranoia.

A step toward tyranny is just plain fact. What evidence do you have to the contrary besides a couple decades of no guns in the UK?
And the UK is already in for some shit regardless, it simply echoes in the deep. And their government probably knows it to, which is why they are so adamant in trying to unify forces, getting in bed with all the liberal extremists in our country which caused this ridiculous 'debate' to begin with. Among other things.

Actually, it's primarily Americans preaching to America, because we're sick of people being killed by guns.

It's actually just a bunch of ultra-liberal nuts, who just don't like the idea of reality so they try to redefine or ignore it, depending on which one is yapping or which one isn't.

 

[greenyxi]

This "gun being the only protection" statement keeps cropping up over and over, when guns are too dangerous for self-defence! A stun gun is perfectly fine, or even a kick to the nuts. Seriously, why a gun?

 

[Ultimaja]

This "gun being the only protection" statement keeps cropping up over and over, when guns are too dangerous for self-defence! A stun gun is perfectly fine, or even a kick to the nuts. Seriously, why a gun?

This is the biggest load of crap that basically exists on the anti-gun side of things, and you're wondering why the 'gun protection' still comes around?

A widow recently shot down a robber attempting to break into her home while she was alone with her baby. She grabbed a gun and shot him upon him getting in. Would a stun gun or a 'kick in the nuts' have done anything in that situation?

No, it wouldn't.
So keep the stupid questions to somebody stupid enough to find some sort of legitimacy in them.

 

[greenyxi]

This is the biggest load of crap that basically exists on the anti-gun side of things, and you're wondering why the 'gun protection' still comes around?

A widow recently shot down a robber attempting to break into her home while she was alone with her baby. She grabbed a gun and shot him upon him getting in. Would a stun gun or a 'kick in the nuts' have done anything in that situation?

No, it wouldn't.
So keep the stupid questions to somebody stupid enough to find some sort of legitimacy in them.

A stun gun making him unconscious wouldn't have done anything? Geez, I'm so stupid sometimes...

 

[Ultimaja]

A stun gun making him unconscious wouldn't have done anything? Geez, I'm so stupid sometimes...

Because the other one would have come up and she would've gotten her teeth knocked in. She would have been better off to have prayed to the god you all say doesn't exist, and wait for the police I assume you think instantaneously appears, while she gets beaten to a pulp, her child in jeopardy and her valuables gone which will not be reimbursed.

So yeah.. reality. It sucks doesn't it?

 

[greenyxi]

Because the other one would have come up and she would've gotten her teeth knocked in. She would have been better off to have prayed to the god you all say doesn't exist, and wait for the police I assume you think instantaneously appears, while she gets beaten to a pulp, her child in jeopardy and her valuables gone which will not be reimbursed.

So yeah.. reality. It sucks doesn't it?

I pride myself on my psychic abilities, I really do, but they let me down this time. I never foresaw the second burglar you were gonna add to the story after my point.

Getting back to it, stun guns don't run out after one use you know. They should have a wee bit more juice than that. And as they came into the house one after another, it would have been fine. A gun would have been harder to aim for a novice shooter/housewife, I'm sure.

But anyways, I'm bored now. And should probably not raise my blood pressure or I may have wrinkles early. Nobody wants my face to uglify, I'm sure. Enjoy the thread folks

 

[Ultimaja]

I pride myself on my psychic abilities, I really do, but they let me down this time. I never foresaw the second burglar you were gonna add to the story after my point.

The fact that you refuse to think that far ahead or in depth just shows the anti-gun bias for what it is.

Getting back to it, stun guns don't run out after one use you know. They should have a wee bit more juice than that. And as they came into the house one after another, it would have been fine. A gun would have been harder to aim for a novice shooter/housewife, I'm sure.

Wow, you think it's better for a woman by herself with a baby to have a stun gun then an actual firearm when some unknown people are bold enough to break into her home with the lights on?

What is in the water over there in gun-free land? Besides tea

 

[Ultimaja]

Hate to break it to you, but have you seen some of the toys our military has? They don't even have to leave the office to kill you. If they turn on us, your piddly AR-15 is basically useless.

Except people in government themselves would turn against the government. It wouldn't exactly be *government vs citizens*, it would be a civil war.

Don't know if I could say the same about the UK though:

~In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

~In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

~Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

~China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

~Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

~Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

~Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


~Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.~
http://westnet.com/~levins/guncontrol3.html



But you're right, we're just *paranoid* and those like yourself *aren't completely blissfully ignorant*. The UK is the ultimate wonder of the world.

Pfft. We'll see in a few decades.

 

[Donald Trump]

Basically what Ultimaja is saying is that if you don't own a gun it's your own fault when you get killed. When being the operative word, because crime is everywhere, it's besides the point that the easy access to guns facilitates crime. He probably blames all those kids at Sandy Hook for not being strapped. If only those primary kids could own AK-47s then they would never have been killed and Obama could not continue his Muslim/Communist takeover of the USA. Actually that's stupid. The kids should have had m-16s, always buy American firearms, available from your nearest Wallmart. God bless Capitalism, and guns. Innocent victims and bystanders less so, it's their own fault.

 

[Dionysos]

I hadn’t realised that we in the UK held ourselves so highly above everybody else. I apologise if we give off that impression. But we’re just a bunch of individuals with individual opinions that happen to live on an island that was once beyond the known world, then was on the fringes, then gained power and colonised and ruled a large part of the world and did some things that were quite terribly naughty, then didn’t, and now it doesn’t know what it is. We wouldn’t want guns here as we have some sort of collective cultural personality disorder.

People will naturally express their own opinions, and since British people don’t do the gun thing we often have opinions that are against the idea of gun ownership. This shouldn’t be mistaken for us telling the Americans what to do, as we have no power there, but it is merely the expression of an opinion and a concern for people in general. Anyone anywhere can express an opinion, and will do this, but it doesn’t mean that their wishes will be enforced on other people. We are not tyrants anymore.

As for the culture bliss, I’m not sure what is meant here but I find this an interesting concept. A lot of people who live here see the country as a shambolic joke. There is little respect for the current government, and many big organisations in the country. We don’t really have a sense of culture. We often struggle to pinpoint what it is to be British (and people fear being labelled a racist if they make an attempt to do so), and we don’t have anything like the USA has for nationalistic pride. This isn’t across the board, I guess. Interestingly, more people are proud of being Scottish and proud of being Welsh than the English seem to be of being English (I hear a Scottish voice yell ‘with good reason! Ho ho ho!’). I’d argue that we’ve culturally collapsed somewhat. And we rarely ever think about guns, outside of fictional contexts or the army.

Whereas some people use guns almost as a sort of national symbol for the United States of America (alongside the flag itself, the eagle, etc). I appreciate that this is often for satire, but for some people who post proud pictures of their guns as an American symbol, it is heartfelt. This is completely alien to many of us here in the UK.

Brits simply do not share this attachment to firearms, and I can’t see us seriously embracing the return of guns. Most of us want to keep guns out of our lives, and to leave it to movies and games where in an ideal modern civilised world they would belong (the exception being for warfare, etc, which will probably continue to be glorified and justified for as long as people have unyielding disagreements). For most of our normal daily lives the concept of a gun does not even enter our minds. This might be what was meant by a culture bliss, in that we as Britons are blissfully unaware of the danger that we are in because we do not have guns. Perhaps we can sometimes find ourselves in danger, but since we don’t have the guns to contribute to that danger, at least we know that the potential for that danger is kept to a low minority of individuals.

People can be unstable, and people can flip, and people in the heat of the moment can make rash and deadly decisions (or a lack of a decision) to attack someone, and if that previously sensible person happened to be carrying a gun as opposed to simply his/her keys, phone and wallet, then the damage that person does might be somewhat more serious than a furious punch to the face. As an example.

We have a very different mind-set here, and we don’t have a comparable gun culture in Britain, and I’m personally very glad for it. I appreciate that the different mind-set is at the core of this, and that it will be more difficult to convince a large portion of America of this. In Britain we don’t really even use words like ‘liberal’. Well, we use the word, but certainly not in any way comparable to the American use of the term, where it is sometimes used as a catch-all as if all liberals should be grouped together as sharing the same mind and opinions on various topics, not just gun control, and that they are deliberately unsettling America or the world in general. Phrases such as ‘it’s liberals like you that (insert a terrible thing they are perceived to be responsible for)’ get thrown about a lot. This sort of terminology compresses all people who hold a different opinion under one label, creating a unified bogeyman of all horrors piled into one generalisation which can then be attacked in one go, and it also creates an us-and-them polarising mentality which can be damaging to everybody.

I’d hate to feel that I’m at war with the world every day. We’re all people trying to get on with our lives. Yes, there are some who kill and mug and rape, and yes these people are awful, but if we all armed, then we are carrying our deadly paranoia and distrust of people around with us at all times. It is not a constant warzone out there. If it is in your area, you have my sympathy, and that is where outreach and improving the social conditions of an area is crucial work that needs to be done in places where gangs and violence are prominent. I’d hope to see people cut out the issues at its root instead, and improve lives, and improve the ways that people relate to each other, rather than providing a scared and hate-filled area with an arsenal.

 

[Mitsuki]

Taking control of this thread. Sorry, folks.

Closed for the time being until further notice.

 

[greenyxi]

Time to re-open and allow for more gun control debates!

*Fireworks! Party! Music! Musical Chairs!*

 

[Dragon Mage]

Now that this is open again, I merely wish to impart two thoughts for everyone to keep in mind, both put forth by a very wise man a long time ago.

Firstly:

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes."

-- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book
​

And secondly:

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy as cause for withdrawing from a friend." --Thomas Jefferson
​

Remember everyone, debate cleanly, politely, and friendly. Winning a fight isn't worth fostering animosity. A debate, after all, is meant to find a solution to a problem. Solutions require compromise, not victory. As bonus food-for-thought:

"A man convinced against his will is of his own opinion still." --Anon


Dragon Mage out.

​

 

[iSmiff]

Now that this is open again, I merely wish to impart two thoughts for everyone to keep in mind, both put forth by a very wise man a long time ago.

Firstly:

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes."

-- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book​

Nope. I refuse to accept this argument. Fire wasn't discovered as a means of hurting people. It was a tool. Water isn't used primarily to drown people. It's a tool of life! A gun is not a tool. It's a weapon. A guns primary purpose is to inflict mortal wounds on someone/something. I don't understand how people can't grasp this concept. Guns only purpose is to kill. It's not your fault that past leaders have made mistakes allowing the free purchase of weapons but ultimately times have changed. The world is a different place than it was 100 years ago. I understand patiotism and whatnot and I can only assume that's what pro-gun are blinded by.

Dont tell me 'if you ban guns you need to ban hammers, hammers are weapons too.' - hammers are tools primarily and impromptu weapons. That sort of argument assumes we ban anything that can be used as a weapon is foolish. Bricks? Banned. Socks and soap? banned. Razor blades? Banned.

Im not even shocked at the news of a mass shooting in the US anymore. I think that alone proves what a sorry state of affairs it is over there regarding gun control.