Discalculia (off-topic posts split)

[discord]

on gun control, there is a few interesting differences between european vs US(and canadian) gun laws, but basically it boils down to what questions are being asked, europe asks why should you have this?(and forcing any gun owner to prove that they have a need for a gun that coincides with allowed practices), whereas american laws ask why should this person not be allowed a gun?

translation, not allowed unless specifically excepted, or allowed unless specifically excepted. whereas canada seems to have a reasonable balance.

been watching a youtube guy on the subject and it was quite interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw7EQtkHtxY

personally i'd go for certification for competence, background check(criminal activity, mental disorder, drug problems) for getting a license.
rules for safe storage, and transfers of ownership, all legal guns to be registered(if someone with a unregistered firearm is encountered by police, it's probably intended for criminal use.)

that would give the cops the legal clout needed for checking suspicious guns, the database of owned weapons useful for investigations, and a minimum of bureaucracy that eats up police work hours that could be used for better things, and finally keeps the guns away from both criminals(safe storage, background checks) and incompetents(certification of safe use) and finally nutcases(background check for mental disorders and violence) which comprises most of the danger groups, the final one emotional trauma and suicide is lessened with safe storage due to the time to get the weapon, but this is probably the biggest remaining issue of legally owned weapons.

bottom line, we live in a ridiculously safe world at the moment, zero tolerance vision nice but at what cost?

[Hālian]

How did we go from the Loroi to dyscalculia to gun control

[Charlie]

Considering the posts weren`t just ban hammered away but split, I guess it`s a fairly good outcome. But as it what kicked it off, I guess you might start at the beginning and compare to find out.

[Absalom]

personally i'd go for certification for competence, background check(criminal activity, mental disorder, drug problems) for getting a license.
rules for safe storage, and transfers of ownership, all legal guns to be registered(if someone with a unregistered firearm is encountered by police, it's probably intended for criminal use.)

that would give the cops the legal clout needed for checking suspicious guns, the database of owned weapons useful for investigations, and a minimum of bureaucracy that eats up police work hours that could be used for better things, and finally keeps the guns away from both criminals(safe storage, background checks) and incompetents(certification of safe use) and finally nutcases(background check for mental disorders and violence) which comprises most of the danger groups, the final one emotional trauma and suicide is lessened with safe storage due to the time to get the weapon, but this is probably the biggest remaining issue of legally owned weapons.

I'd probably add a requirement to join your State Guard (or make yourself available to the state police for emergency aid and disaster relief in the absence of such), though there's a decent chance that's only my opinion.

How did we go from the Loroi to dyscalculia to gun control

It's a fine, upstanding tradition of the Outsider forums B) .

[discord]

absalom: hmm, duty to balance rights, sounds about right in my ears, the biggest issue i have is really with the uneducated nincompoops(although more likely OVER educated) that think no guns=safe place.....it's just sad, since it does not even make a place safer, the real world data says quite the opposite.

[Absalom]

absalom: hmm, duty to balance rights, sounds about right in my ears, the biggest issue i have is really with the uneducated nincompoops(although more likely OVER educated) that think no guns=safe place.....it's just sad, since it does not even make a place safer, the real world data says quite the opposite.

In their defense, an insane asylum where the patients aren't allowed access to guns is safer than the opposite . They completely miss that "and the most dangerous are kept restrained" bit, and they miss that "constant supervision and counseling" bit, but that one "no duh, Sherlock" bit they get loud and clear .

Now if only they would think through it more thoroughly, we could move the debate into a productive sphere. Shame that it never seems likely to happen.

[discord]

Correlation does not imply causation is that really such a hard concept to grasp?
but in a situation where you are constantly being monitored and have less freedom and basic human rights than frickin maximum security prisoners, not so strange things get 'under control'...lol.

seriously though, that old saw about sacrificing freedoms for security really is true, sad but true.

hmm, mental hospitals would probably become safer WITH guns, after a period of increased violence, since lower population(and population density) generally leads to less violence, even in percentages.

[Hālian]

.

[Absalom]

Correlation does not imply causation is that really such a hard concept to grasp?
but in a situation where you are constantly being monitored and have less freedom and basic human rights than frickin maximum security prisoners, not so strange things get 'under control'...lol.

seriously though, that old saw about sacrificing freedoms for security really is true, sad but true.

hmm, mental hospitals would probably become safer WITH guns, after a period of increased violence, since lower population(and population density) generally leads to less violence, even in percentages.

Ah, yes, the WW1/"a well armed populace is a polite populace... after the first few weeks" method. Pretty sure that one gets even the NRA to back down a little in most cases.

[discord]

absalom: is it not sad when an argument backed by fact is ridiculed because it is true? and a argument disproved by fact is taken seriously because it seems more politically correct?

actually it is a matter of perspective, the disarmed and always monitored/counseled approach obviously works, however i would personally not really like to live in that society, so the other extreme? anarchy with everyone packing? not really all that tempting either....so reasonable compromise is the order of the day. but what IS a reasonable compromise?

[Charlie]

actually it is a matter of perspective, the disarmed and always monitored/counseled approach obviously works,

England has no gun shops but more violent crimes than before the guns were all banned,
Theres more information out there.

Reasonable, in my opinion would be a training course must be taken before a gun can be bought. On top of the a decent back round check and undesirable gun owners be disallowed for ownership. Psychological screening should also be considered. A written test of general guns laws and safety. An endorsement from a shooting range.

Undesirable gun owners could included;
Any one who was ever committed a violent crime.
Those found to have any sort of narcotics dependence.
People not mentally fit to have a gun; Depressed persons who must take medication for there affliction. Those at risk of suicide. Metal disorders that change behavior. People who have an IQ too low to be considered safe with a gun.
People with a high risk for future crime.

You could add to the list, but it shouldn`t to easy but shouldn`t take longer than say month or so.

[Grayhome]

This is an excellent list Charlie, but I cannot see the gun manufacturers (who possess a very powerful lobby in American politics) allowing such a large cut in their sales.

Your comment is however, a wonderful thought that I have long believed in though. I always wondered why it was illegal to operate a vehicle or go fishing without the proper registration and certification, but acquiring a gun was much, much easier. Anyone can get them online now without any sort of background check whatsoever, yikes.

[fredgiblet]

@Charlie
The problem is that it's FAR too easy to expand those categories into whatever the government sees fit. For example I took Accutane for a couple years in High School, one of the potential side effects? Depression. What do you want to bet that would disallow me from owning a gun in California? I'm betting it would, because they can.

@Grayhome
Person-to-person, in-state transactions have ALWAYS been legal, the Federal government does not have the authority to regulate in-state commerce per the Constitution, however there's nothing stopping the states from regulating it. The "Gun show loophole" is a myth and anyone sending from out of state has to go through an FFL and fill out all the federal forms.

[Charlie]

@Grayhome
I suppose you could say that more people are killed by car accidents than by gun shots. Therefore cars are more dangerous.


Re@fredgiblet
Would you say you are currently depressed? Currently at risk of suicide? No? Then under those fictions laws you may posses a gun.
Even if you were taking a drug with potential side effects like that, take a psych test proving you are fine, job done. The law would have to prove you shouldn`t have a gun, you need prove you should. If the law can find sufficient cause to block you, they can`t stop you.

The idea isn`t to stop a person you may kill himself, but a person who will kill himself if given access to a gun.

[Grayhome]

@Grayhome
I suppose you could say that more people are killed by car accidents than by gun shots. Therefore cars are more dangerous.

I... you-what? What does that have to do with the level of... what?

A car is a form of transportation that has the potential to be deadly. A gun is a machine created solely for the purpose of killing. Both are deadly and therefore we regulate both, to certain degrees. Cars are very dangerous and complicated machines... which is why everyone who desires a license must take a learning course at the appropriate age to familiarize themselves with their operation and the basic rules of the road.

@Grayhome
Person-to-person, in-state transactions have ALWAYS been legal, the Federal government does not have the authority to regulate in-state commerce per the Constitution, however there's nothing stopping the states from regulating it. The "Gun show loophole" is a myth and anyone sending from out of state has to go through an FFL and fill out all the federal forms.

The first thing we learned about the Constitution in every Political Science course I took was how outdated and open ended the U.S. Constitution was, how difficult it is to amend, and how there are intentional features of it's design. Also technically under the constitution it is stated (if you follow a literal translation) that all citizens should have access to predator drones, Abram tanks and suitcase nukes and if the citizens cannot afford such weapon systems the government is obliged to purchase them for us.

The constitution was written when the most advanced for of weaponry took an extended period of time to reload (under ideal conditions) and had far less accuracy than modern firearms over a much lesser distance. I remember reading a military review of one of the first Winchester repeating rifles being sold to the Calvary men of the old west and how the solder was quoted as being vehemently opposed to allowing any "civvies" to come anywhere near a killing weapon of such caliber, let alone owning one. Civies having pistols and hunting rifles was adequate for self protection against bandits and Indians.

Gun shows, online sellers, even legal gun store owners have been found guilty of selling firearms illegally without background checks to individuals. For a long time now. It happens. Either by mistake or design.

[discord]

charlie: and england has nowhere near the same 'constant monitoring and counseling' as compared to a mental institution, which i was referring to, england however is one of the may cases of 'removing guns makes a society less safe' i did not list.

grayhome: and one of the 'everyone knows this so no reason to actually write it in' oopsies is in the second amendment, that it is there pretty much for the sole reason that the citizens are to be able to stand up to the state(any state, especially their own) gone mad....combined with good training in the use of those weapons... defense against criminals and wild life is a pleasant side effect though.

but today is so safe it's fucking silly, and it must be safer!!!11 but at what cost?

[Grayhome]

but today is so safe it's fucking silly, and it must be safer!!!11 but at what cost?

Gun violence in the US has caused more deaths than terrorism, the outcomes are not even close.

The statistics I work with on a daily basis would disagree with you on that account sir, the world at large and America in particular, is far from a safe place. Rising rates of autism, obesity, diabetes are taking a significant toll upon our capacity for national production and upon national morale. Climate change is causing a great deal of strife in the US and will continue to as it worsens, especially in the coastal regions where high levels of the human population of the US is situated. International corporations are using legalized bribery and are having a disproportionate representation in the American governing process. The prison industry in America is the most populated of all nations on the planet, their inmates disproportionately minority and poor. World banks are gambling with the money entrusted to them on a precipice of a global depression. China is using the scrap metal and funds from trade with the United States to forge a navy, and they have started annexing territory of American Allies and directly threatening our allies with military force. NSA, FBI, CIA officials have been caught lying to the highest levels of government about performing extremely illegal acts that pose a significant threat to our democracy. The United States has been at war for the past... what is it now? Three decades? More? Rates of suicide and rape amongst members of the US armed forces are at an all time high. The president of the United States has been filibustered 82 times (last I checked), the combined amount of all US presidents who have been filibustered is 86, Congress has been declared a "do nothing" institution. Desperately needed legislation is not being passed and the nation is suffering because of it.

Rates of crime, illiteracy, hunger, disease, poverty, employment, etc are all at unacceptable levels and all of those factors contribute to a much less stable and therefore less safe Union for us all.

[discord]

that is bullshit statistics, due to the > sign there, 'terror deaths have been over 3000 since 1970 to present', first off, when is 'present'?, and second, how much over is it? this suggests something close to three thousand, but it could just as well be 3 million for all that data is telling us, and third, there were damn close to three thousand deaths in 9/11 alone....which also happens to be almost the only 'terror attack' worth noting in the US.
and on the gun side, how many of those 'gun fatalities' are suicides? i'll give you a hint, something like 2/3 of the total, and how many gun deaths are part of terror deaths?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting <---- example, 30 terror deaths also gun deaths.


and finally, assuming this is around 2010, thirty years, 30 thousand/year, divide that by population of the US, 300 million, and you get one in 10000/year and that is including the suicide rate which is through the fucking roof, and two thirds are suicides according to current statistics, so that leaves us with 1/30000, do note, i am from Sweden not the US, somewhat different statistics here 1.47/100000/year, with suicides almost 10/1, so the odds of getting killed with a gun is around almost as low as 1/million and that is fricking lottery ticket win rates, i call that pretty safe.
to note, sweden is not 'gun free' by any stretch of the truth, per capita US 89guns/100population with sweden at 31.6/100 and #10 in the world.(funny bit of statistics, great britain and wales has 6.2/100 and a 20% higher homicide(by any means) rate compared to sweden.)

statistics source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_deaths
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... icide_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership

yes, it is still too high in the US, but the problem is not the guns, it's the social situation, unemployment, poverty, utterly crappy school and fucking depression because you can't get a job even if you want one, and if you do, you get screwed over by your employer because you will take whatever shit is handed to you because you do not want to lose the job, nor is it viable to go into business for yourself, because laws and regulation is heavily slanted toward big business nowadays, or the whole dating femnazi you are a rapist until proven otherwise bullshit, and you wonder why people are a bit crazy, criminal and suicidal?

[Absalom]

absalom: is it not sad when an argument backed by fact is ridiculed because it is true? and a argument disproved by fact is taken seriously because it seems more politically correct?

I guess I should come out and say the actual reason we want to avoid it: we think it would be a massive bloodbath, and all of us would prefer to avoid that. For those of us that fall on the conservative side, our reaction to arming even mental inmates has little to nothing to do with our opinion of the results over the long term (I don't think it would necessarily help, but that's because I consider guns to be a mask for the real problems, which are societal).

actually it is a matter of perspective, the disarmed and always monitored/counseled approach obviously works, however i would personally not really like to live in that society, so the other extreme? anarchy with everyone packing? not really all that tempting either....so reasonable compromise is the order of the day. but what IS a reasonable compromise?

Well, I was only suggesting it for the extreme cases. I figured that it went without saying that the vast majority of the population never went within a mile of the mental institutions.

Anyone can get them online now without any sort of background check whatsoever, yikes.

Anyone willing to spend the money and time can build one at home without any sort of background check too. I would actually have an easier time producing a fully automatic gun than a semi-auto. There's some South American city where guns are apparently completely illegal, but the local gangs were having the things scratch-built. Drug smugglers have been building cheap submarines to hide their shipments. Etc.

Re@fredgiblet
Would you say you are currently depressed? Currently at risk of suicide? No? Then under those fictions laws you may posses a gun.

By your interpretation, yes, but as the US Constitution demonstrates, the intent of the original authors is sometimes (often, even) disregarded by the enforcers.

@Grayhome
I suppose you could say that more people are killed by car accidents than by gun shots. Therefore cars are more dangerous.

I... you-what? What does that have to do with the level of... what?

A car is a form of transportation that has the potential to be deadly. A gun is a machine created solely for the purpose of killing. Both are deadly and therefore we regulate both, to certain degrees. Cars are very dangerous and complicated machines... which is why everyone who desires a license must take a learning course at the appropriate age to familiarize themselves with their operation and the basic rules of the road.

A sword is a tool created solely for the purpose of killing. Definitions that reliably distinguish kitchen knives from swords ultimately depend on not the details of their construction, but instead on what the original manufacturer intended it as. Should we therefor regulate the ownership of kitchen knives?

Guns are a tangential subject to gun violence. Why? Because it's the violence that people have reason to care about. You can try to cut down on gun ownership to cut down on the violence, but that'll just shift the violence somewhere else. Gun control is a great feel-good subject, but if you want to make progress, then you need to look at social issues instead. Going on about how guns fuel violence not only fails to understand the causes of violence, but blocks progress on attempts to end said violence.

@Grayhome
Person-to-person, in-state transactions have ALWAYS been legal, the Federal government does not have the authority to regulate in-state commerce per the Constitution, however there's nothing stopping the states from regulating it. The "Gun show loophole" is a myth and anyone sending from out of state has to go through an FFL and fill out all the federal forms.

The first thing we learned about the Constitution in every Political Science course I took was how outdated and open ended the U.S. Constitution was, how difficult it is to amend, and how there are intentional features of it's design.

Outdated is up to interpretation (does it mention telephones? no, but you still have a Constitutional right for the government not to wiretap your phone whenever it feels like it, because that's the way the Constitution was always meant to be treated), and both the open-endedness and the difficulty of amending are themselves some of those intentional features that were mentioned to you. The people who think those are bad things always believe it because they already have something that they want it to say. Gun-control advocates and gun-rights advocates are both stereotypical examples of this.

Also technically under the constitution it is stated (if you follow a literal translation) that all citizens should have access to predator drones, Abram tanks and suitcase nukes

Ah, but that truly is but an interpretation. An alternative is that the states should have access to such, and may well be more literal.

and if the citizens cannot afford such weapon systems the government is obliged to purchase them for us.

This, on the other hand, I don't recall any basis for. Did you get this out of the Congressional regulation of militias bit? Because saying that is the same as mandating funding is stretching the point a bit too far...

The constitution was written when the most advanced for of weaponry took an extended period of time to reload (under ideal conditions) and had far less accuracy than modern firearms over a much lesser distance.

And telephones didn't exist, nor radios, nor airplanes, nor any of a number of other things.

I will tell you right here and now: if the Constitution was rewritten to compensate for modern technology then the result would be massively inferior, because adjusting such a document to current technology means that it will no longer be as appropriate when the technology changes again. If you attempt to "cover your bases" with a Constitution analogue then you cause problems, because it's role as a foundational document means that it must not change often. Every time that the Constitution doesn't have something that you can apply to a legislative problem, there's a 99% chance that you're approaching the subject wrong.

The statistics I work with on a daily basis would disagree with you on that account sir, the world at large and America in particular, is far from a safe place. Rising rates of autism, obesity, diabetes are taking a significant toll upon our capacity for national production and upon national morale.

None of this is relevant to gun regulation, and I can't think of any way to tie it to gun violence either. Superfluous.

Climate change is causing a great deal of strife in the US and will continue to as it worsens, especially in the coastal regions where high levels of the human population of the US is situated.

The environmental lobby doesn't seem to help much anyways. They want changes that most of us aren't currently willing to accept, and haven't been pushing stuff that could justify itself on other merits as well (e.g. replanting mangrove swamps, both to absorb C02, and to resist hurricanes). I would hope that they'll improve, and I think that they might have been, but doom-and-gloom aren't enough to drive people to action.

International corporations are using legalized bribery and are having a disproportionate representation in the American governing process. The prison industry in America is the most populated of all nations on the planet, their inmates disproportionately minority and poor. World banks are gambling with the money entrusted to them on a precipice of a global depression. China is using the scrap metal and funds from trade with the United States to forge a navy, and they have started annexing territory of American Allies and directly threatening our allies with military force.

This post has pretty solidly moved into "the sky is falling!" territory. The sky is always falling, the only reason that we care is because we aren't lifting ourselves up by our bootstraps and getting to work. Obama is unfortunately probably the one at fault for that: he's apparently loath to use political capital on international movements (you know that "pivot to Asia"? that wasn't Obama, that was Hillary: and now we have Kerry, who's more focused on his own legacy than on Obama's), producing an unfortunate duplicate of the servant that buried the money that his master entrusted to him, whereas he's supposed to be acting like the master himself. He didn't get elected to the office of Press Secretary In Chief, he's the President.

The United States has been at war for the past... what is it now? Three decades? More?

How are you getting the three decade count? Are you remembering to consider peace-time? At any rate, some of it we're stuck with regardless: the economy has too many international ties (ties, incidentally, which are part of our international peace strategy dating from the post-WW2 era! operative philosophy? make peace more profitable than war, so that their greed will win out) to allow us to act otherwise, and whenever a big attack is made against a nation that nation needs to do it's best to effectively retaliate so that everyone will grow a little more gun-shy.

Rates of crime, illiteracy, hunger, disease, poverty, employment, etc are all at unacceptable levels and all of those factors contribute to a much less stable and therefore less safe Union for us all.

So basically, we're being torn apart by social ills, so we need to focus our efforts on guns? Yeah, no, we need sustained, good social reform programs. That'll take care of a host of ills at the same time. Guns are a distraction, and the more focus that gets paid to them, the less that gets paid to the root issues.

As discord said, the problem isn't gun regulations, but instead societal.

[Grayhome]

Have exams soon so this'll be quick

A sword is a tool created solely for the purpose of killing. Definitions that reliably distinguish kitchen knives from swords ultimately depend on not the details of their construction, but instead on what the original manufacturer intended it as. Should we therefor regulate the ownership of kitchen knives?

Guns are a tangential subject to gun violence. Why? Because it's the violence that people have reason to care about. You can try to cut down on gun ownership to cut down on the violence, but that'll just shift the violence somewhere else. Gun control is a great feel-good subject, but if you want to make progress, then you need to look at social issues instead. Going on about how guns fuel violence not only fails to understand the causes of violence, but blocks progress on attempts to end said violence.

Guns make it easier to kill people. Nations with less guns or where gun ownership is outright illegal have on average far fewer gun related deaths and fewer murders in general because of this. Guns make killing easy and therefore a much more attractive choice. A good example is Japan for gun control, an example of poor gun regulation equaling more gun deaths is Africa. Also, owning swords or other melee weapons is already strictly regulated in many states. Because they are deadly weapons. That were created to easily kill humans.

I... I honestly don't understand the point of the second paragraph. A great deal of my article was devoted to examining alternate social factors that exasperate gun violence, perhaps I did not fully clarify that.

Ah, but that truly is but an interpretation. An alternative is that the states should have access to such, and may well be more literal.

and

This, on the other hand, I don't recall any basis for. Did you get this out of the Congressional regulation of militias bit? Because saying that is the same as mandating funding is stretching the point a bit too far...

Right to bear arms = citizens have the right to own and operate the most technologically advanced firearms available of the time. Founders didn't want the state to devolve into another monarchy, so everyone having muskets was deemed a good preventer for that. To put down the government if it got uppity. This interpretation is from historians and political scientists who devote their lives to studying History in general and early American History in particular.

And telephones didn't exist, nor radios, nor airplanes, nor any of a number of other things.

I will tell you right here and now: if the Constitution was rewritten to compensate for modern technology then the result would be massively inferior, because adjusting such a document to current technology means that it will no longer be as appropriate when the technology changes again. If you attempt to "cover your bases" with a Constitution analogue then you cause problems, because it's role as a foundational document means that it must not change often. Every time that the Constitution doesn't have something that you can apply to a legislative problem, there's a 99% chance that you're approaching the subject wrong.

The constitution was made to adapt. It was designed to be very very hard to adapt, but adaptation was a design feature because the Founders knew there would be future events that they could not predict.

Outdated is up to interpretation (does it mention telephones? no, but you still have a Constitutional right for the government not to wiretap your phone whenever it feels like it, because that's the way the Constitution was always meant to be treated), and both the open-endedness and the difficulty of amending are themselves some of those intentional features that were mentioned to you. The people who think those are bad things always believe it because they already have something that they want it to say. Gun-control advocates and gun-rights advocates are both stereotypical examples of this.

The three fifths compromise is still a part of the constitution. Even neutered it still exists as evidence to the outdated and clunky nature of the system.

None of this is relevant to gun regulation, and I can't think of any way to tie it to gun violence either. Superfluous.

I was responding to a statement that implied America was a safe place, and giving criticism of that theory. America has a murder rate approaching third world nations. Also why you are criticize me noting social factors related to gun control when a few paragraphs ago you criticize me for not noting social factors that are responsible for gun violence? Nothing is superfluous. All things are connected, and poor morale, failing public health and poverty are recipes for increased crime rates.

The environmental lobby doesn't seem to help much anyways. They want changes that most of us aren't currently willing to accept, and haven't been pushing stuff that could justify itself on other merits as well (e.g. replanting mangrove swamps, both to absorb C02, and to resist hurricanes). I would hope that they'll improve, and I think that they might have been, but doom-and-gloom aren't enough to drive people to action.

The EPA has been gutted and rotten through for quite a while now. There have been several investigations into fraud and corruption and recent findings have proven that corporate entities illegally influencing the EPA for the purpose of removing or limiting regulations. With ex-CIA, FBI, NSA employees they hire for very, very large sums. Totally agree with you there, really need to give the EPA more teeth.

This post has pretty solidly moved into "the sky is falling!" territory. The sky is always falling, the only reason that we care is because we aren't lifting ourselves up by our bootstraps and getting to work. Obama is unfortunately probably the one at fault for that: he's apparently loath to use political capital on international movements (you know that "pivot to Asia"? that wasn't Obama, that was Hillary: and now we have Kerry, who's more focused on his own legacy than on Obama's), producing an unfortunate duplicate of the servant that buried the money that his master entrusted to him, whereas he's supposed to be acting like the master himself. He didn't get elected to the office of Press Secretary In Chief, he's the President.

American are amongst the hardest working people on the planet, per capita. We are the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the planet, bar none. That wealth has been concentrated into the upper 1% of Americans. Notably example of this is the Wallmart family. Obama, Kerry and Hillary are pro-establishment politicians (i.e. big business) and their campaign donations heavily influence their politics.

How are you getting the three decade count? Are you remembering to consider peace-time? At any rate, some of it we're stuck with regardless: the economy has too many international ties (ties, incidentally, which are part of our international peace strategy dating from the post-WW2 era! operative philosophy? make peace more profitable than war, so that their greed will win out) to allow us to act otherwise, and whenever a big attack is made against a nation that nation needs to do it's best to effectively retaliate so that everyone will grow a little more gun-shy.

Cold War, Persian Gulf, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, multiple American funded and sponsored overthrows of democratically elected governments etc etc. Just naming a few.

So basically, we're being torn apart by social ills, so we need to focus our efforts on guns? Yeah, no, we need sustained, good social reform programs. That'll take care of a host of ills at the same time. Guns are a distraction, and the more focus that gets paid to them, the less that gets paid to the root issues.

As discord said, the problem isn't gun regulations, but instead societal.

Yes, the problems are societal. And guns are a big part of our societal problems. I see them as one and the same issue, guns do not magically become separate entities above and beyond all criticism because of reasons. Regulating guns is merely one of many steps it will take to get America back on track. Another is raising the minimum wage to $22.50 an hour, supplying free health care, improving the (internationally mocked) American educational system, and massive increases to NASA’s budget and massive cuts to military spending. Also Germany and Japan should be allowed to rearm, to assist American efforts in maintaining free and fair international trade, America has shouldered the financial burden of that for too long, and it is draining us too much. Just a few suggestions.