Thursday, July 21, 2016

The last day of the Republican National Convention has started, so the horror will soon come to an end! - BONUS: Meet the real Michelle Obama!


By Patrick

Yes, the last day of the horror show has started! It really was a bad as everyone expected. Ted Cruz caused a little upset, but he had not much to lose anyway. I still expected Cruz to endorse Trump though, to be honest. In any case, Donald Trump will pretty soon be history, as his chances to win a general election are virtually zero.

I enjoyed the fact immensely that Sarah Palin was absent from the Convention. Everybody knows that she is so toxic that not even her buddy Donald Trumpolini had the power to bring her to Cleveland. The GOP just wants one thing: To forget about Sarah Palin, and I am pretty certain that the same fate awaits Donald Trump as well.

Naturally, it had been a great time for cartoonists all over the nation as well. 

Don't miss the brilliant bonus clip at the end! :-)









+++

MUST-SEE BONUS CLIP - MEET THE REAL MICHELLE OBAMA:



Monday, July 18, 2016

The Republican National Convention has started - let the fun begin!

The Republicans have gathered: Sheep or not be sheep? That is the question.

By Patrick

The Republican National Convention has started. I still believe that it could be a mass brawl. We will see!

There is a very good live stream at the Washington Post.

Actually, it already starts to get pretty rowdy.

Watch for updates.

Very useful is also the live stream at MSNBC which provides additional footage.

Also, here is the live stream at NBC.

+++

Also, please read the excellent article by Jane Mayer about Donald Trump at the "New Yorker": "Donald Trump's Ghostwriter Tells All."

+++

UPDATE:

Not just Trump's ghostwriter Tony Schwartz is speaking out. In addition, Donald Trump biographer Michael D'Antonio also gives a very revealing interview - on Austrian television:



Saturday, July 16, 2016

Donald Trump chooses Governor Mike Pence as his VP-candidate, but in the end, Donald Trump will always be about Donald Trump


By Patrick

So Donald Trump has finally a running-mate. A white man with white hair who is a rabid ultra-right-winger. Who would have thought!

Funnily, even before announcing Mike Pence as his VP, Trump already managed to make quite a fool out of Pence - Josh Marshall writes on TPM:

Newt Gingrich didn't do quite as badly. But it was close. According to the Times Gingrich confirmed by email that he still hadn't heard from Trump about his final decision, only minutes before Trump tweeted it to almost 10 million followers around the world. The pattern was the same, a deepening cycle of greater submission and more abject humiliations.

And now we have Mike Pence.

Trump apparently chose Pence or got very close to choosing him and then decided against him or got extremely cold feet. Pence, it seems, finally had to give Trump an ultimatum that he had to commit, publicly, before Friday's noon filing deadline. But now the Trump forces have managed to spread the word, through some largely irrelevant mix of intention and indiscipline, that Trump spent a day trying to get out of his commitment to Pence, doubting Pence was really someone he even wanted. So Pence gets the veep slot but at the cost of being publicly branded as someone Trump didn't want. Junk that was forced on Trump, someone to whom he owes nothing, except possibly contempt. As the Times put it in tonight's article, after his audience with Trump earlier today, "Mr. Pence did not respond to questions about Mr. Trump’s reported vacillation over choosing him."

Eventually he won't be able to ignore that question. And what will his answer possibly be? Trump has already managed to take Pence the governor of a major state and recast him as a ridiculous figure, the guy who managed to bag the vice presidential pick only to have the guy at the top of the ticket broadcast to the world that he'd rather not have him. This will hang over Pence regardless of how the ticket fares. He's also now publicly renouncing various past statements about Trump and his policies. Almost every vice presidential candidate has to do some version of this. But Trump's positions are far more extreme and the criticisms of them are too. So Trump's Muslim ban goes from being "offensive and unconstitutional" to ... well, awesome.

(Many thanks to our reader KalenaSmith for linking to this article by Josh Marshall!)

But in the end, Donald will always be about Donald, regardless the VP-choice. Donald Trump is a self-absorbed clown who does not care anything else apart from him. He is a very dangerous clown, as has often been pointed out. That some conservatives are now trying to help him coming to power is no less more dangerous than some deluded German conservatives bringing Adolf Hitler to power in 1933.




Donald Trump wants to rule as a dictator. He does not know anything else. He managed to crush the GOP-opposition, because he sensed that brute force could dominate an oversized primary-competition. He would attempt to do the same with opponents in the Senate, for example, and would most likely be successful. The immense power of the American Presidency would make it fairly easy for Donald Trump to get his way in the end.

Donald Trump is therefore also not overly concerned about the fact that the GOP might lose the Senate:

But Trump presents a much more complex weather system for his ticket-mates to navigate than either of these cases. His views are not wedded to a coherent ideological movement within his party (as Goldwater’s were), nor is his unpopularity a simple judgment on his record (as Carter’s was). Instead, Trump is a sui generis figure who must be accepted or rejected on his own terms, not artfully hedged around in the way politicians are accustomed to doing. And while Trump was undoubtedly the most popular Republican primary contestant in a field of 17, it’s still not clear how many of his opponents’ supporters will vote for their party’s pick on Election Day. For an at-risk Republican senator this fall, to back away from Trump is, by extension, to snub his millions of die-hard loyalists, the one group of party voters that is sure to show up on Nov. 8. But to go all-in for Trump is to take leave of your Republican bona fides and embrace life as a Trump Mini-Me — a gamble that not a single Republican senator up for re-election this fall appears to have the stomach for.

None of this seems to overly concern Trump. When I asked him recently whether the party’s maintaining its majority in the Senate meant anything to him, he replied: “Well, I’d like them to do that. But I don’t mind being a free agent, either.” Trump has shown similarly little interest in helping his party’s committees build the sort of war chests typically required in a campaign year. After winning the presidential nomination on a shoestring budget and with fewer paid staff members than the average candidate for governor, he has been visibly reluctant to help build much in the way of national campaign infrastructure, sending a clear message to his fellow Republicans: This fall, you’re on your own. As Ryan Williams, a strategist with the 2012 Romney presidential campaign, told me: “Traditionally, the nominee has a robust campaign that absorbs the R.N.C. effort and works in tandem with the down-ballot campaigns. We did that with Romney in 2012. This time around, there’s a complete void at the presidential level. Trump’s trying to play a game of baseball and hasn’t put out an infield.”

In addition to Kirk, there are five Republican incumbents running in states that Obama won in 2012 whose fortunes are now lashed to those of the Trump campaign: Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire, Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, Marco Rubio in Florida, Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania and Rob Portman in Ohio. In May, Ayotte offered her “support” for Trump, but a spokeswoman quickly clarified to reporters that Ayotte “hasn’t and isn’t planning to endorse anyone this cycle.” Johnson supplied messaging advice to the Trump campaign during the Wisconsin primary in April and declared the day after Trump vanquished Ted Cruz on May 3 that “I am going to certainly endorse the Republican nominee.” Two weeks later, however, Johnson ratcheted down his endorsement to Ayotte-esque “support,” warily adding that he would “be concentrating on the areas of agreement with Mr. Trump.”

Rubio, meanwhile, has remained in a state of Trump-induced torment ever since his drubbing in the presidential primaries. Before announcing that he would run again for the Senate, Rubio said that he would be “honored” to help his party’s nominee, but later hedged, saying he did not expect to speak at the Republican convention on Trump’s behalf — and finally declaring he would not attend the convention at all. “I think that the Senate needs to fulfill its role as a check and balance on the president, no matter who it is,” he said last month. This was clearly intended to suggest that, if re-elected, he would not blindly do the bidding of a President Trump — a notion that has prompted belittlement from Rubio’s Democratic opponents. “What’s so funny about that premise is that Rubio’s the only Senate candidate we’re running against who has proven he’s ineffective at standing up to Donald Trump,” Sadie Weiner, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s communications director, told me.



So let's hope that Mike Pence is not becoming the next Franz von Papen, who once wanted to "tame" Hitler:



+++

One more cartoon:


+++

Have a nice weekend, everybody!

+++

COMEDY BONUS:



Saturday, July 9, 2016

In "Gun Nation USA", everybody is a victim


By Patrick

In "Gun Nation USA", everybody is a victim.

The police.

The black.

The white.

The old.

The young.

The children.

The mothers.

The fathers.

The Christians.

The Muslims.

The Jews.

The Atheists.

The good,

The bad.

The citizens.

The foreigners.

The illegals.

The gun owners.

The ones who don't own guns.

+++

What more is there to say?

It should not be like that.

+++

Some documentaries for education and reflection:

"Gun Crazy USA":




Inside Story Americas - What fuels the love for guns in the US?




Crossfire : The politics of gun rights and gun control - the fifth estate




The following last clip is particularly good...

The state of gun violence in the US, explained in 18 charts:



+++

In addition, this chart from the BBC-website speaks for itself:


+++

Pray for the victims, and for America:



Zed Nelson, photo from "Gun Nation": Columbine High School shooting victim John Tomlin Jr.'s pick-up truck in the school parking lot. He parked his truck the morning of April 20, 1999, and never returned to pick it up. The following day people began to lay flowers and notes on it. In the days following the tragedy the family visited the truck, and sat in the cab and cried, and left their own flowers and messages, trying to make sense of their sudden and unexpected loss. It was still there ten days later, piled high with wilting flowers.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Brexit: It's like having a very bad dream, except that it's not a dream


By Patrick

Yes, it's Brexit again, because I am still pretty, pretty upset. Rabblerousers like Nigel Farage and others managed to convince a majority of the Britons that "Brexit" would be good for them, would give them back their "freedom" and would remove all these strange foreign looking people from the streets. What they didn't tell them is that "Brexit" would cause a catastrophe of epic proportions, and would economically devastate Britain for decades to come. What a shame.

Some people might believe that the EU is just part of an evil German conspiracy, with Angela Merkel trying to conquer Europe and suppress the other member states. Nigel Farage probably believes something like that. He is an idiot, and together with other idiots, like Boris Johnson, now leads Britain into the abyss.

The EU spent billions of British pounds in Britain each year, in order to help those regions which are disadvantaged, as well as in order to help farmers.

Cornwall in England for example received billions of pounds from the EU over several years, but the majority of the voters still voted for the "Brexit." They are now waking up to a grim reality:




So what has the evil EU been doing in Cornwall all these years?

Quote:

Newsagent Nick Carey is one of the 182,665 Cornish people who voted to leave the EU even though Brussels has ploughed many millions of pounds into the area where he lives and works.

His arguments are familiar ones: “I want our sovereignty back. I want control. And, yes, I’m worried about immigration. It’s fine to share what we’ve got with others, but let’s make sure we’re OK first. Since the result and all the fuss, I must admit I’ve got a bit worried the economy may suffer, but we’ll get through – the British stiff upper lip and all that.”

The Cornish result was stark. Seventy-seven per cent of the county’s population turned out, of whom 56.5% opted for Brexit.

According to figures from the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), the region was on course by 2020 to have benefited from a total of £2.5bn of funding – EU cash matched with public and private investment – since the turn of the century.

Headline projects completed with EU backing have included a £132m scheme to bring super-fast broadband to the far south-west, three innovation centres, rail line improvements and the development of a glitzy university campus at Penryn, near Falmouth.

It wasn’t going to end there. Between now and 2020, key projects supported by EU funding were set to include exciting work around aerospace – with Newquay touted as a possible site for the proposed spaceport announced in the Queen’s speech – and in geothermal energy.

The UK farmers will also soon be confronted with the reality after "Brexit" - from the "Brexit-friendly", conservative Daily Telegraph:


Farmers are demanding that the victorious Leave campaign honours its promise to provide them with financial support to replace the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, which currently provides 55pc of their income.

Pro-Brexit farming minister George Eustice insisted during the campaign that a “Brexit dividend” meant the Government could and would do so.

Meurig Raymond, president of the National Farmers’ Union, called for a new “British agricultural policy” with “guarantees that the support given to our farmers is equal to that given to farmers in the EU, who will still be our principal competitors”.

UK farmers receive between £2.4bn and £3bn in subsidies from the EU each year, while the average income of a farmer was just over £20,000 in 2014. Farmers also want to see the bureaucracy of the CAP, which was widely criticised by eurosceptics, replaced with a simpler scheme tailored to Britain’s needs, and assurances that they will still be able to access seasonal labour.

Yes, they will all want something, the poor regions and the farmers.

There is only one little problem:

They will only receive very little or nothing, because they money will simply not be available any more. "Brexit" will lead to a loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the UK, and the tax revenue will fall dramatically. 

Also, another fact well know to anyone who has ever lived in the UK: The British conservatives despise nothing more than poor people, so the poor regions should not expect much pity from the government in London.

Good luck with celebrating your new "freedom"...!




Finally, three new clips about "Brexit", for entertainment and education:

John Oliver:




Samantha Bee:




The German international channel "Deutsche Welle" (in English):




But why do I even bother - it's too late. The British have democratically decided to cripple themselves, this is a fact.

I am very hopeful, however, that the Americans will not repeat the same mistake and will make the right choice in November. Yes, they will!

Good night and good luck!

Friday, June 24, 2016

And now for something completely different: The United Kingdom commits economic suicide


By Patrick

It is difficult to find the right words today, but I will try. If you are being misled by very foolish people, you will get very foolish results, Here at Politicalgates, I have often written about the power of propaganda, and now we can witness the power of propaganda first hand - again.

There was rarely a country which needed the European Union more than the United Kingdom. The wealth of the United Kingdom results mainly from a large financial industry which is part of the large service sector, in combination with oil reserves in Scotland. The service sector provides about 78% of the GDP of the United Kingdom. It is huuuuuuuge.

Ever since Margaret Thatcher decided to kill the UK industry and made the switch to an economy which is based on the service sector, the UK economy desperately needed open markets and foreign labour. It was also helpful that the bankers in London could develop lots of fancy financial instruments, and only had to fear the milder UK banking regulations - but with the possibility to sell all these fancy financial instruments afterwards within the European Union.

There would be much to say about all this, but this catastrophic "Brexit"-vote showed that in Britain arguments do not matter too much, when nationalist emotions are so much more appealing. We want to be free! We want to be independent! No immigrants! FREEDOM!

Also: "SAVE THE NHS!" The NHS is the "National Health Service" of the UK, a cherished institution, because it provides "free" healthcare for the young and old, the rich and the poor. Of course it is not "free", but paid by taxes. Anyway, despite the fact that American right-wingers try to tell you that universal healthcare is an invention of the devil, the British actually love their NHS.

So what the heck has the NHS to do with the European Union or the Brexit? Actually, I was asking this question myself just a few weeks ago when I saw footage of "Leave"-campaigners with NHS-signs, just like in this photo:




"Save our NHS" - sure, yes, but what has this to do with the "Brexit"...?

Only today I realized the connection. Of course, it was just propaganda, made by pretty evil people for pretty naive people.

The "Vote Leave" campaign seriously argued that leaving the European Union would "save the NHS", and the tabloids, who were complicit in spreading the "Leave"-propaganda, happily jumped on the bandwagon:


Yes, who likes "freeloading health tourists"...! Nobody! Get the hell out, you freeloaders, we are leaving! Don't come back!

Also, the "Leave-campaign" seriously argued that 350 million pounds each week could be spent on the NHS, if the money does not have to be handed over to the European Union. See the following clip with a statement by Gisela Stuart, who was the chair of the official "Vote Leave" campaign. FUN FACT: She was actually German and immigrated to Britain in 1974!




Well, first of all, the sum of "350 million pounds every week" is complete bollocks. Unfortunately, I found the correct information only in the German version of the German news magazine "Der Spiegel"  - translation:

The British government does not send 350 million pounds to Brussels every week. Thanks to the special status, that was negotiated by Margaret Thatcher in 1984, this weekly payment is reduced to 250 million pounds. If you then deduct the billions, which are flowing each year from the EU to the island, there remain only 110 million pounds which constitute the British "net payment" every week.

For this "net payment", the UK receives: Three millions of people from the EU which live in the UK, who spend a lot of money there and who pay taxes. The UK also receives free access to the European markets, and much more.

Boris Johnson, the former London Mayor and prominent "Leave"-campaigner, who appears to be rather "Trumpian" these days, loved to present himself in front of a big red bus displaying the message that 350 million pounds could be spent on the NHS every week, instead on the EU:





See also this clip with Boris Johnson, published two days ago - Quote: "350 million pounds per week is a very eye-catching figure":




It was all a joke, of course. Right-wing populists like Boris Johnson, as well as "UKIP"-leader Nigel Farage love propaganda. They don't like facts, and they also have no hesitation to walk back their "promises". This should be a lesson for US voters as well, who have the choice this year to elect snake-oil-salesman Donald Trump.

Nigel Farage today explained on British TV that this great "promise" to spend 350 million pounds on the NHS, a promise which certainly appealed to many voters, should not be taken seriously,




What were the other promises? Oh yes, immigration. The "immigrants", the "freeloaders"...for years, this has been a favorite topic of the UK tabloids:


The advantage of immigration? Don't know...it's all so complicated, isn't it. Far too complicated for the common voter, that's for sure.

In a democracy, there are politicans who are elected and who are able to deal with problems. It seems that the UK politicans were not able to solve the problems of the country, and as a result, the majority of the voters pulled the emergency break.This will now cause serious problems for years, and many people as well as businesses will suffer.

On the internet I found a very good report about the possible consequences of the "Brexit", published in June 2015 by UK experts. In typical British understatement, they outline the possible disastrous consequences of the "Brexit." There was perhaps too much understatement in these type of studies. They simply could not compete with the gripping tabloid headlines about the nasty immigrants...

Examples from this study:


"Some business would be likely move to Eurozone financial centres or be lost to Europe".

Yes, this is very likely indeed. While it is true that London would probably still be a large financial center, new reports estimate that the banking sector could lose about 40,000 jobs, mostly to Europe.

Quote:

Other banks have been more upfront in saying that it would have at least some of their staff exit London. Last week, Morgan Stanley said it would relocate as many as 1,000 workers if the U.K. was to leave the EU. J.P. Morgan Chase, prior to the vote, said it was likely to move 4,000 employees out of Europe. But on Friday morning after the vote, Dimon said JPMorgan was committed to keep a large staff in London. Still he said J.P. Morgan is likely to move at least 1,000 people out of London.

“For the moment, we will continue to serve our clients as usual, and our operating model in the U.K. remains the same, Dimon said in a memo to staff obtained by Business Insider. “In the months ahead, however, we may need to make changes to our European legal entity structure and the location of some roles.”

The following excerpt from the study also does not sound fantastic:


In addition;


"The majority of published studies find the impact on the UK would be negative and significant."

That's why you need experts who are in charge, and why you should not gamble your country away...

The funny thing is that I myself should not be sad, because it is very likely that Frankfurt will profit immensely from the developments. Frankfurt is the ideal location for the financial institutions, it is already the leading financial center on the continent and has the necessary infrastructure. It also provides much more comfortable living conditions than London.


.

However, I am very sad indeed. Many British citizens will suffer as a result of foolish policies and foolish politicians.

+++

UPDATE:

Yes, this happens when you manipulate the voters:



EDIT: The deleted video is still available HERE.

+++

 UPDATE 2: 

John Oliver about the Brexit - and the Brexit-campaign, simply brilliant as usual:



+++

UPDATE 3:

The UK "Independent" newspaper published a clip in which snake-oil-salesman Nigel Farage throws around the "10 billion per year to the EU" claim and says that he wants this money to be spent on hospitals and schools. 

Of course, none of this money will ever be spent on hospitals and schools, this was all just cheap propaganda. In order to gain access the EU market, the UK will have to spent virtually the same amount, just a Norway is doing now (the EEA contribution) - and will at the same time have no say in any of the measures adopted within the EEA.

Also, the UK will most certainly have a considerable loss in taxes due to the economic turmoil and loss of jobs that the "Brexit" will cause, so there won't be more money to spend. 

If you put yourself in the hands of foolish and insincere people, you will get fooled.

It is a huge tragedy that the British have been subjected to decades of anti-EU propaganda, but nobody ever seems to have properly explained to them the great advantages and benefits of being an EU-member.



Monday, June 13, 2016

The Gun Trap


By Patrick

I cannot even count how many times we have been shocked and saddened by horrific mass shootings in the USA during the previous years. At the same time, nothing has happened to prevent these massacres.

Many, if not most of the US citizens have easy access to high powered, military grade weapons. Sometimes there are "background checks." However, they are not strict enough, they cannot prevent massacres, they do not work:


The truth is that politicians from all sides have failed the US citizens. Unfortunately, it is not just the Republicans who are to blame for the current situation. This might be an unconvenient and unpopular truth, but in my opinion, it is still the truth.

The "Daily Show" brutally exposed in 2013 the unwillingness of the Democrats to seriously push for effective gun control, The Democratic strategists concluded (correctly) that some voters might not like it. I included the three video clips of this brilliant "Daily Show" segment in my "Happy New Year" post for the year 2015. This "Daily Show" report was hitting a mark, and never before or afterwards have I seen a better summary of this terrible disease the plagues America: The USA is caught in the "gun trap" - and there seems to be no way out.

It is not just the assault rifles which are the problem. Even small handguns like the very popular and modern "Glock" pistols are so high-powered that it is easy to kill many people within a few seconds.

There is also another inconvenient truth: If the "good guys" are allowed to own the guns, then the bad guys will have them as well. In addition, sometimes the distinction between a "good guy" and a "bad guy" is almost impossible. The Orlando killer Omar Mateen had a security and a firearm license, and therefore by definition was a "good guy."

Gun control can only work if the policies are very strict, like it is the case in Europe, or for example in Australia after the big change 20 years ago:


Quote:

The chances of being murdered by a gun in Australia plunged to 0.15 per 100,000 people in 2014 from 0.54 per 100,000 people in 1996, a decline of 72 percent, a Reuters analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics figures showed.

In 1996, Australia had 311 murders, of which 98 were with guns. In 2014, with the population up from about 18 million to 23 million, Australia had 238 murders, of which 35 were with guns.

It was the April 28, 1996, shooting deaths by a lone gunman of 35 people in and around a cafe at a historic former prison colony in Tasmania that prompted the government to buy back or confiscate a million firearms and make it harder to buy new ones.

The country has had no mass shootings since.

The figures directly contradict assertions of most leading U.S. presidential candidates who have either questioned the need to toughen gun laws or directly denounced Australia's laws as dangerous.

See also the three brilliant "Daily Show" clips I mentioned above regarding the situation in Australia.

The concept that one has to fight gun violence with even more guns is simply insane, and nobody outside the USA seriously promotes this theory. However, in the USA, in the year 2016, the grass is blue and the sky is green. Not always, but far too often. The lack of effective gun control is a collective failure.

Here in Europe, we have pretty effective gun control in place, which makes the life of the Europeans so much safer, and so much better. Usually, it is almost impossible to buy guns. You need special licences, but in contrast to the situation in the USA, the rules are actually extremely strict. Only very few people receive such kind of licences.

Yes, Europe just recently had massive terror attacks with guns as well, in Paris. Does this mean that gun control does not work? No, of course not. There is one major difference to the situation in the USA: In Europe, the "bad guys" cannot just walk into a shop and buy a gun. They need to go to extreme measures to get hold of guns, and this makes a huge difference. This is a very effective way for example to prevent the "lone wolf" attacks which plagued the USA for so many years.

How do the terrorists in Europe get their guns? The answer might be surprising: The weapons need to be smuggled from Eastern Europe - because the cannot be bought in Western Europe.


Quote:

France outlaws most gun ownership and it’s almost impossible to legally acquire a high-powered rifle such as an AK-47, so where did the weapons in the Nov. 13 terror attack—not to mention the bloody January assault by Islamic terrorists on the Paris office of Charlie Hebdo magazine and the 2012 shootings by a militant in Toulouse—come from?

The answer: Eastern Europe, most likely, where the trafficking of deadly small arms is big, shady business. And where local authorities find it difficult to intervene.

The French government and the European Union know they have a foreign gun problem. But as the chain of attacks illustrates, efforts to tamp down on the flow of weapons have, so far, failed to disarm terrorists.

French police reportedly seized more than 1,500 illegal weapons in 2009 and no fewer than 2,700 in 2010. The number of illegal guns in France has swollen by double-digit percentages annually for several years, Al Jazeera reported, citing figures from Paris-based National Observatory for Delinquency.

This is a really important difference: The weapons need to be smuggled. Every potential "lone wolf" attacker will have great difficulties to obtain a weapon in Europe. You will most likely need an organization for the smuggling, and the effort has to be huge. This gives law enforcement much more possibilites to intervene and prevent possible attacks. If an IS supporter in France or Belgium could simply walk into a shop and buy a gun, without any checks or permits, the work of the police would be so much harder - and the threat for the general population would be so much greater.

But this is exactly the case in the USA. In Florida, for example, you do not need a licence to buy or own a handgun. You also do not need to be registered. There are virtually no restrictions in regards to obtaining a gun, as far as I understand. From an European point of view, this sounds totally insane.

Looking at the numbers of guns in the USA ("More guns than people"), the situation seems almost hopeless:


Of course it should not be hopeless. A major, combined political effort could of course eliminate the threat, although this would be very unpopular with large parts of the US population.

But such a combined effort won't happen. Many more people in the USA are condemned to die through the hands of heavily armed psychopaths. The USA is trapped, just like the poor victims were trapped in the Pulse nightclub in Orlando on Sunday morning. There will be no solution, unless the grass is green and the sky is blue. I am not holding my breath.