[Adam Elgar]

Thank you for that, Quincy - an admirable response.

[Janice D. Soderling]

Janice Soderling, you haven't heard a word I've said, and you have this madness going on both sides of Sweden. Last I heard, both Norway and Finland have very tough gun control laws. So much for that.

Tim, I have listened and still am. I don't understand your Norway and Finland references but I can update you on the requirements for possession of firearms in these two countries. You should bear in mind that both have many active hunters of wildlife among them and both have been under occupation by enemy troops, so the need for self-defense is not unknown and. Nonetheless, their possessions of firearms are tightly regulated and their homicide by firearms statistics are not close to that of the US.

Re: Finland, which has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in Europe.

Regulation

The ownership and use of firearms is regulated by the Firearms Act of 1998.

Firearms can only be obtained with an acquisition license, which can be applied for at the local police for a fee. A separate license is required for each individual firearm. The number of firearms a person can own is not limited in any way. With the primary licensee's consent, parallel licenses to his firearms can be granted to other persons. According to law, the firearms must be stored in a locked space or otherwise locked, or with vital parts removed and separated. Even then the weapon or any of its separated parts must not be easily stolen. If more than 5 pistols, revolvers or self-loading rifles or other-type firearms are being stored, they must be stored in a certified gun safe or in a secure space inspected and approved by the local police authority.

They may be carried only when they are transported from their place of storage to the place of use (shooting range, hunting area or such). Even then they must be unloaded and concealed or kept in carrying pouches. Aside from law enforcement agents and military personnel, only security guards with closely defined working conditions, special training and a permit are allowed to carry a loaded gun in public places. The ownership of air-rifles is not regulated but carrying or firing them in public places is not permitted. A crossbow is paralleled to an air rifle in legal matters.

To obtain a firearms license, an individual must declare a valid reason to own a gun (self defense is not considered "valid"). Acceptable reasons include hunting, sports or hobby shooting, profession related, show or promotion or exhibition, collection or museum, souvenir, and signalling. The applicant must provide evidence supporting the acquisition license application to prove that he or she is actually using firearms for the stated purpose(s). Such proof may consist of written declarations from other license holders as referees, shooting diaries or certificates from a shooting club.

The applicant is also subjected to an extensive background check from police accessible databases and even citations for speeding or drunk driving can be grounds of not granting the license.

The firearms certificate may be cancelled if a person has committed any crimes (in addition to violent crimes, simple theft and traffic offences are also considered) or has broken certificate rules. Physical and mental problems or reckless behavior are solid grounds for cancelling the certificate.

Norway

To own a gun in Norway, one must document a use for the gun. By far the most common grounds for civilian ownership are hunting and sports shooting, in that order. Other needs can include special guard duties or self defence, but the first is rare unless the person shows identification confirming that he or she is a trained guard or member of a law-enforcement agency and the second is practically never accepted as a reason for gun ownership.

There are two ways of obtaining an ownership license in Norway. The most common is through the process of obtaining a hunting license, the other is through a sports shooting license.

For hunting

To obtain a hunting license, the applicant must complete a 30 hour, 9 session course and pass a written multiple choice exam. The course includes firearm theory, firearm training, wildlife theory, and environmental protection training.

Once the exam is passed, the applicant may enroll in the hunter registry and receive a hunting license. The membership must be renewed each year, through license payment. The hunting license is brought to the police station, where the applicant fills out an application for obtaining the proper firearm for his or her hunt. After evaluation, part of the application is sent back to the applicant if it was approved. Upon approval, the applicant can take the returned form to the store and purchase the firearm listed in the application.

For sports shooters

The qualification process for sporting is theoretically easier, but requires more time and practice. The applicant must enroll in a firearm safety course, lasting at least 9 hours. The course includes a written test, but is shorter than the hunting exam, as it only deals with firearm safety. Two thirds of the course is completed on the shooting range as practice. The passing of the test results in acceptance to the approved gun club, and a license for competition. However, while the hunters can obtain their firearm almost at once, sports shooters must prove their intentions to compete by actively training or competing in the gun club. This means regular attendance (at least 15 times) at gun club training over the course of six months. The applicant must use firearms owned by the club or borrowed at the range for this period. After six months, the applicant may apply for weapon ownership. The start license and a written recommendation from the gun club president are brought to the police station, and the competition class is filled out on the application. If approved, it will be returned to the applicant as with the hunter license.

[W.F. Lantry]

Originally Posted by Janice D. Soderling

If you can point me to reliable documentation, I would appreciate it.

Janice,

The full text is here: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents...d-version).php

Here's the relevant passage:

"I don't want to destroy the good atmosphere in the room or in the country tonight, but I have to mention one issue that divided this body greatly last year. The last Congress also passed the Brady Bill and, in the crime bill, the ban on 19 assault weapons. I don't think it's a secret to anybody in this room that several members of the last Congress who voted for that aren't here tonight because they voted for it. And I know, therefore, that some of you who are here because they voted for it are under enormous pressure to repeal it. I just have to tell you how I feel about it.

The members of Congress who voted for that bill and I would never do anything to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms to hunt and to engage in other appropriate sporting activities. I've done it since I was a boy, and I'm going to keep right on doing it until I can't do it anymore. But a lot of people laid down their seats in Congress so that police officers and kids wouldn't have to lay down their lives under a hail of assault weapon attack"

Youtube video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv6Am_o32as

The interesting thing about Tim's couple anecdote is that it proves how irrational people are. The center (we don't actually have a left in this country) always does the same thing: it cites statistics and data and reasonable arguments. But these things are completely unpersuasive to the right.

That couple Tim described? Their bumper stickers are not about reason or persuasion, but about cultural identification. Tim metaphorically parading around with his bugle and tricorner hat (I think I'm getting Michael's phrase right), same thing. These things aren't meant to persuade anyone. But those same people will passionately defend their cultural markers.

The only good news I can see here is that those people are getting less and less numerous. Their party seems to be in a death spiral. Take Tim's home state: there ain't no more than a wheelbarrow full of democrats there, yet the republicans couldn't even get a senator elected there last month. Same is true of Montana, and even Indiana. These deep red pro-gun states are like early indicators of the coming change.

And just maybe, once the bugle and tricorner hat crowd fades away, David's students won't have to huddle in a corner of their classroom as bullets fly outside.

Peace,

Bill

[Gail White]

It used to be embarrassing to be a Southerner because our politics were so uniquely stupid. I'm not embarrassed about that any more.

[Janice D. Soderling]

OK Bill. Thanks. I don't have sound on my machine right now, but assume that this is at the very beginning of the speech. I suppose one can be cynical and say they are applauding that the anti-gun people lost their seats, some of them anyway, or they can be applauding the courage to lay their seats on the line.

Since I can't follow exactly in the sound, I will guess the latter and sleep better tonight with my faith in the American people's representatives not completely ravished.

[Andrew Mandelbaum]

A Blue Review (new to me) article called I am Adam Lanza's Motherr.

[Charlotte Innes]

Thank you, Andrew, that was a very moving piece. My heart goes out to that mother.

I swore I wouldn't come back here. But after a good night's sleep, I want to say first of all that we can't ignore mental illness, and that is NOT to say that killers are all mentally ill, or that people kill others because they are mentally ill. It's not a matter of blame. But it is a factor. And why? Because many mentally ill people are not getting the care they need. It's not a side issue, as someone said earlier. It ties in with a comment made by David Rosenthal just now. I quote this excerpt:

I do agree, though, that gun control is a bit of a red herring issue. It would be a stop gap measure. But the real problem is social inequality -- poverty, racism, anti-immigrant discrimination, etc. More heartbreak. More shame. More silly waste of time arguments. More political posturing. More nobody listening. More nothing being done by people with the means to do something.

Mental illness should be added into that mix. I can't tell you how many mentally ill people I see on the streets around where I live in Los Angeles. They are usually homeless. Some of them are vets. Many are addicts. A few are violent. They are not getting the care they need.

It so often comes down to money--and societal attitudes, of course. Take education for example.... Well, I could go on. But I won't. Just to say it's all so complicated, and to wonder where our priorities are.

Now I'm going to read some poetry!

Charlotte

[Tim Murphy]

Any demographic analysis will tell you the red states are gaining and the blue states losing in representation. Just look at the 2010 reapportionment. Of course blue staters far surpass us in murdering babies. Connecticut has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, but would you like to compare their finances with the Dakotas? Or their homicide rate? I lived there for five years, so I'm not exactly a stranger. I'm out of this discussion. I'm glad I started it, and I got a good tripartite ode out of it. I'll be sure to let you know where it is published, so you vitriolic gun controllers can grind your collective teeth. Quincy, hold your head high. You've carried a lot of water and chopped a lot of wood for us.

[Janice D. Soderling]

Of course blue staters far surpass us in murdering babies.

Tim, you really do need to think before you speak.

I can't believe that you and Quincy are so sensitive when neither of you have ever shown any finesse in how you address others. "Silly" is a mild, mild, mild admonition, especially compared to the often slung "douchebag".

And as for your plucking points from "vitriolic gun controllers" and exulting that you "got a good tripartite ode out of" a serious discussion on a national tragedy, well, I am left just speechless.

[Ed Shacklee]

Originally Posted by Tim Murphy

Any demographic analysis will tell you the red states are gaining and the blue states losing in representation. Just look at the 2010 reapportionment.

At least some of the red states that are gaining in representation are also turning purple, like Virginia. I'm not qualified to discuss demographic analysis, but am I wrong in thinking that voters under 30 broke overwhelmingly for Obama? Old voters tend to die off more quickly than young voters do, that much I know.

Ed