This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Well?
1
In reply to radddogg:
After all of the previous shootings they never have. What makes this one any different?
After all of the previous shootings they never have. What makes this one any different?
8
In reply to radddogg:
I imagine they'll make it compulsory for college students to carry guns, in order to discourage this sort of thing. In my experience that's pretty much the level they think at.
jcm
I imagine they'll make it compulsory for college students to carry guns, in order to discourage this sort of thing. In my experience that's pretty much the level they think at.
jcm
16
1
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Sadly I dont think this will change anything. If Sandy Hook didnt why should anything.
Sadly I dont think this will change anything. If Sandy Hook didnt why should anything.
1
1
In reply to radddogg:
There was a similar thread recently
Definitely no, even if they did there are too many things about already and too many borders to police
There was a similar thread recently
Definitely no, even if they did there are too many things about already and too many borders to police
In reply to radddogg:
"Another project, Mass Shooting Tracker, has a broader definition of mass shootings. While the FBI measures a mass shooting as an incident when people are killed, the tracker classifies a mass shooting as an event when four or more people are shot. Using that criteria, the tracker reports that 294 known mass shootings have occurred this year."
http://www.newsweek.com/45th-mass-shooting-america-2015-378803
294! Gulp.
"Another project, Mass Shooting Tracker, has a broader definition of mass shootings. While the FBI measures a mass shooting as an incident when people are killed, the tracker classifies a mass shooting as an event when four or more people are shot. Using that criteria, the tracker reports that 294 known mass shootings have occurred this year."
http://www.newsweek.com/45th-mass-shooting-america-2015-378803
294! Gulp.
In reply to radddogg:
No chance, too much money involved for them to change the gun law's, this shooting like the others will be used to push the case for more guns so that people can defend themselves.
No chance, too much money involved for them to change the gun law's, this shooting like the others will be used to push the case for more guns so that people can defend themselves.
In reply to radddogg:
Certainly not!!!.
The NFA will insist that if there'd been more guns (=everyone armed) then this wouldn't have happened.
Certainly not!!!.
The NFA will insist that if there'd been more guns (=everyone armed) then this wouldn't have happened.
In reply to radddogg:
Obama certainly looked pissed off when he gave a press conference about it last night. I didn't see the whole speech but he laid into the 'more guns' argument and into the right-wing media. Unfortunately even their president giving them a telling off like a disappointed parent who's been called by the teacher for the 294th time this year will probably make no difference.
Obama certainly looked pissed off when he gave a press conference about it last night. I didn't see the whole speech but he laid into the 'more guns' argument and into the right-wing media. Unfortunately even their president giving them a telling off like a disappointed parent who's been called by the teacher for the 294th time this year will probably make no difference.
7
In reply to radddogg:
No they won't change.
A Facebook thread appeared in my feed this morning relating to the Obama speech. Flicking through the comments below it was clear that a number of people want change but they are being shouted down by the "more guns, don't take my freakin guns off me..." brigade.
No they won't change.
A Facebook thread appeared in my feed this morning relating to the Obama speech. Flicking through the comments below it was clear that a number of people want change but they are being shouted down by the "more guns, don't take my freakin guns off me..." brigade.
1
In reply to radddogg: Of course not. America leads the world in 3 areas: Defence spending, number of jailed people per 1000 of population and the percentage of people who believe angels are real. Despite the polling that Obama mentioned, there is too much fear and paranoia and money and simple backcountry ignorance involved for things to change significantly within the next 10 - 20 years.
4
1
In reply to radddogg:
Never .
America is addicted to guns.
As long as they prefer guns over the safety of their family , friends and children then they will never change.
Unfortunately the debate is also stirred up by the conspiracy nuts that will claim that lots of these killings are false flag type government sponsored attacks in order to make them have tighter gun control, which of course the majority will rebel against.
Bowling for columbine shocked me years ago when I watched it . They fact that you can go into a bank open a new account and they give you a gun there and then as a welcome gift is just mental.
OM
Never .
America is addicted to guns.
As long as they prefer guns over the safety of their family , friends and children then they will never change.
Unfortunately the debate is also stirred up by the conspiracy nuts that will claim that lots of these killings are false flag type government sponsored attacks in order to make them have tighter gun control, which of course the majority will rebel against.
Bowling for columbine shocked me years ago when I watched it . They fact that you can go into a bank open a new account and they give you a gun there and then as a welcome gift is just mental.
OM
6
1
In reply to radddogg:
I honestly believe that the US would change the definition of Mass Shootings to skew the figures, before changing their view on guns.
I honestly believe that the US would change the definition of Mass Shootings to skew the figures, before changing their view on guns.
10
In reply to radddogg:
most of the arguments have been raked over with a fine tooth comb, many times before e.g. http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=531207 sadly it seems the good ol' U. S. of A. would much rather have guns everywhere and bury a bunch of kids every few weeks than deal with the problem.
most of the arguments have been raked over with a fine tooth comb, many times before e.g. http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=531207 sadly it seems the good ol' U. S. of A. would much rather have guns everywhere and bury a bunch of kids every few weeks than deal with the problem.
In reply to Andy Hardy:
There is a local senator campaigning for better mental health care. The approach needs to be two pronged, tighten gun laws and better mental health provisions.
The individual states can tighten laws and do, but for much of the country it won't change. But there is finally a recognition the suicide rate is a big issue and many of these are f*cked up young males killing themselves and taking others with them. That isn't an argument against gun control just gun control alone isn't enough.
Obama sick of it. He's clearly fed up saying the same stuff every time and nothing changing.
There is a local senator campaigning for better mental health care. The approach needs to be two pronged, tighten gun laws and better mental health provisions.
The individual states can tighten laws and do, but for much of the country it won't change. But there is finally a recognition the suicide rate is a big issue and many of these are f*cked up young males killing themselves and taking others with them. That isn't an argument against gun control just gun control alone isn't enough.
Obama sick of it. He's clearly fed up saying the same stuff every time and nothing changing.
1
1
In reply to cap'nChino:
No they just use the figures as an argument for guns..
"Better to be trialled by 12 than carried by 6"
Facebook is full of that nonsense at the moment.
> I honestly believe that the US would change the definition of Mass Shootings to skew the figures, before changing their view on guns.
No they just use the figures as an argument for guns..
"Better to be trialled by 12 than carried by 6"
Facebook is full of that nonsense at the moment.
1
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Every other nation on the planet has it's percentage of screwed up young men, however it appears the gun culture in the US confers upon them the ability to commit mass murder and on a regular basis, that's what they do.
Every other nation on the planet has it's percentage of screwed up young men, however it appears the gun culture in the US confers upon them the ability to commit mass murder and on a regular basis, that's what they do.
3
In reply to radddogg:
Of course not, but normally I just accept that they're a different country and they do things differently but something about reading this one today just made me very sad and very angry.
There has to become a breaking point and Obama's point about far more Americans have their lives ruined by guns than terrorism, yet they send billions a year trying to fight "terror". Good to see him saying too that the usual "thoughts and prayers" platitudes aren't going to fix anything. This is apparently the 15th time he's had to address the nation because of a mass shooting (so just the ones bad enough to get presidential attention).
Some quotes in the article I read that just don't have any place being related to a modern, western democracy in 2015:
"Since Obama’s reelection in November 2012 there have been 993 mass shooting events in the United States, "
"Almost 300 of them have occurred in 2o15."
"Michael Bloomberg, noted that the Umpqua college killings were the 45th school shooting this year in the US, and the 142nd school shooting since the attack at Sandy Hook elementary school, in Connecticut, nearly three years ago."
If those stats are correct they really are sickening - the sort of thing you'd expect in Nicaragua or Guatamala. And the annoying this is the pro-gun lobby clinging to the 2nd ammendment - well here's the clue - it's an ammendment - when we see something is wrong in a democracy we change it, otherwise rich whites would still have slaves and women wouldn't be able to vote.
I'm not bash America - I'm genuinely sad for my friends and colleagues who live there and they genuinely deserve better than they're getting. The genie is out of the bottle though with guns, and the political will is just not there to fight the vested interests.
Of course not, but normally I just accept that they're a different country and they do things differently but something about reading this one today just made me very sad and very angry.
There has to become a breaking point and Obama's point about far more Americans have their lives ruined by guns than terrorism, yet they send billions a year trying to fight "terror". Good to see him saying too that the usual "thoughts and prayers" platitudes aren't going to fix anything. This is apparently the 15th time he's had to address the nation because of a mass shooting (so just the ones bad enough to get presidential attention).
Some quotes in the article I read that just don't have any place being related to a modern, western democracy in 2015:
"Since Obama’s reelection in November 2012 there have been 993 mass shooting events in the United States, "
"Almost 300 of them have occurred in 2o15."
"Michael Bloomberg, noted that the Umpqua college killings were the 45th school shooting this year in the US, and the 142nd school shooting since the attack at Sandy Hook elementary school, in Connecticut, nearly three years ago."
If those stats are correct they really are sickening - the sort of thing you'd expect in Nicaragua or Guatamala. And the annoying this is the pro-gun lobby clinging to the 2nd ammendment - well here's the clue - it's an ammendment - when we see something is wrong in a democracy we change it, otherwise rich whites would still have slaves and women wouldn't be able to vote.
I'm not bash America - I'm genuinely sad for my friends and colleagues who live there and they genuinely deserve better than they're getting. The genie is out of the bottle though with guns, and the political will is just not there to fight the vested interests.
13
In reply to radddogg:
Nope, nothing will change. Because they'll always fall back to the argument that if the teachers were armed with M60s, they could have wasted him instantly.
Obama will blow a bit of hot air of course. But, nothing of any substance will happen, too close to the next election now and they wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of the NRA, the gun loving voters, gun manufacturers and the like.
Nope, nothing will change. Because they'll always fall back to the argument that if the teachers were armed with M60s, they could have wasted him instantly.
Obama will blow a bit of hot air of course. But, nothing of any substance will happen, too close to the next election now and they wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of the NRA, the gun loving voters, gun manufacturers and the like.
In reply to Andy Hardy:
I think suicide is a huge developed world problem but the US has very weak mental health legislation.
In my city, one of the most dangerous in the U.S., we have one crisis bed, which has a waiting list.. We just imprison people instead.
I think suicide is a huge developed world problem but the US has very weak mental health legislation.
In my city, one of the most dangerous in the U.S., we have one crisis bed, which has a waiting list.. We just imprison people instead.
3
4
In reply to radddogg:
One need not say more:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-nras-profit-soars-as-deaths-from-gun-m...
One need not say more:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-nras-profit-soars-as-deaths-from-gun-m...
In reply to radddogg:
The American gun lobby always use the argument that people have the right to have guns to protect themselves.
But how many of the people shot in all the mass shootings this year actually had guns on them and used them to defend themselves?
I would guess none!!
It makes the argument kind of moot.
The American gun lobby always use the argument that people have the right to have guns to protect themselves.
But how many of the people shot in all the mass shootings this year actually had guns on them and used them to defend themselves?
I would guess none!!
It makes the argument kind of moot.
1
In reply to mgco3:
No, there was a terrorist attack foiled by someone having a gun on them. In Texas I think.
No, there was a terrorist attack foiled by someone having a gun on them. In Texas I think.
In reply to Roadrunner5:
I pressed dislike on your post, not because of what you had to say, but rather as an expression of disapproval at the poor US provision regarding mental health. It's shameful that a first world country treats the mentally ill so badly!
Regarding the daft NRA arguments that appear post-massacre, I'm waiting for a spokesperson to suggest teachers are armed as a solution to this. We had a conversation at work about this (I'm a teacher) and, with tongue firmly in cheek, it was mooted that armed teachers might pose a whole new problem rather than a solution.
Obama did look genuinely frustrated last night. I do hope some good comes from this though I'm not holding my breath.
I pressed dislike on your post, not because of what you had to say, but rather as an expression of disapproval at the poor US provision regarding mental health. It's shameful that a first world country treats the mentally ill so badly!
Regarding the daft NRA arguments that appear post-massacre, I'm waiting for a spokesperson to suggest teachers are armed as a solution to this. We had a conversation at work about this (I'm a teacher) and, with tongue firmly in cheek, it was mooted that armed teachers might pose a whole new problem rather than a solution.
Obama did look genuinely frustrated last night. I do hope some good comes from this though I'm not holding my breath.
1
In reply to mgco3:
But this is what boils my piss. Rights are not natural or set in stone. They're something we collectively agree we should have. The American constitution is full of changes since it was written as it would be lunacy to try to govern a country on a piece of paper written centuries ago.
Obama's frustration was that he couldn't do anything politically to even start a sensible discussion on the topic, never mind start enacting legislation that has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives.
Oregon has a huge number of armed citizens apparently and its quite easy to get a gun. I read a quote that said police in Portland sometimes get alarmed calls saying someone is carrying a (unloaded, on display) semi automatic weapon in the street, only to be told there's nothing wrong with that. None of this made much difference yesterday.
Also - screw that. If I felt I lived in a country that was so dangerous that I felt I had to take a loaded gun with me every time I left the house in case somebody started shooting, I would pretty quickly be looking for a different country to live in.
> The American gun lobby always use the argument that people have the right to have guns to protect themselves.
But this is what boils my piss. Rights are not natural or set in stone. They're something we collectively agree we should have. The American constitution is full of changes since it was written as it would be lunacy to try to govern a country on a piece of paper written centuries ago.
Obama's frustration was that he couldn't do anything politically to even start a sensible discussion on the topic, never mind start enacting legislation that has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives.
> But how many of the people shot in all the mass shootings this year actually had guns on them and used them to defend themselves?
Oregon has a huge number of armed citizens apparently and its quite easy to get a gun. I read a quote that said police in Portland sometimes get alarmed calls saying someone is carrying a (unloaded, on display) semi automatic weapon in the street, only to be told there's nothing wrong with that. None of this made much difference yesterday.
Also - screw that. If I felt I lived in a country that was so dangerous that I felt I had to take a loaded gun with me every time I left the house in case somebody started shooting, I would pretty quickly be looking for a different country to live in.
2
1
In reply to yorkshireman:
Actually the vast majority of the country doesn't feel like that unless you're predisposed to this sort of worrying. I'm much more worried about the terrible driving than being shot. I'm certainly more likely to get hurt climbing or skiing. I've been living here over a year and am yet to even see a gun, other than those carried by the police and hunting rifles for sale in Dick's sporting goods. I don't go to dangerous areas in certain cities though where it would be a genuine worry (Bridgeport in my state, CT for example). I think you have to have a certain level of paranoia to be worried about getting shot in most areas. Media sensationalisation of the lurking dangers that make people feel they need a gun doesn't help, home invasion for example are extremely rare.
Not saying that guns aren't an issue, just that this worry isn't there.
> Also - screw that. If I felt I lived in a country that was so dangerous that I felt I had to take a loaded gun with me every time I left the house in case somebody started shooting, I would pretty quickly be looking for a different country to live in.
Actually the vast majority of the country doesn't feel like that unless you're predisposed to this sort of worrying. I'm much more worried about the terrible driving than being shot. I'm certainly more likely to get hurt climbing or skiing. I've been living here over a year and am yet to even see a gun, other than those carried by the police and hunting rifles for sale in Dick's sporting goods. I don't go to dangerous areas in certain cities though where it would be a genuine worry (Bridgeport in my state, CT for example). I think you have to have a certain level of paranoia to be worried about getting shot in most areas. Media sensationalisation of the lurking dangers that make people feel they need a gun doesn't help, home invasion for example are extremely rare.
Not saying that guns aren't an issue, just that this worry isn't there.
Post edited at 18:09
In reply to dsh:
This is exactly my point - I'm not saying everyone is worried - but the argument of the gun lobby is that if everyone carried guns (with the presumption they might have to use them, otherwise what's the point?) they could stop the bad guys. By definition if everyone did this, there would be a low level, insiduous acceptance that you might need it.
Quite frankly I want to live in a society where the very thought of getting shot is so out there as to not cross my mind. Thankfully I do and always have.
It must be, or are you saying that the millions of handguns and semi automatic weapons in circulation are just for hunting and sport? The numbers don't make sense.
I think like you say it varies since naturally the US is huge and you can't compare CT with downtown Detroit or rural Texas. I've been a few times to Portland, and feel exceptionally safe in the downtown area (christ people walk and cycle around and its actually quite pleasant), but then when I go to our office in Atlanta, my colleagues are incredulous that I would go for a run on the streets and they all believe that downtown is a free-fire zone. Not without some justification as one person I know had a friend shot and killed on his street and I learned that somebody else in the organisationwas killed a couple of years back (a domestic shooting - but naturally made easier by the fact that handguns are everywhere).
Me too, but then we're trying to think rationally about an emotive subject. Generally people don't perceive risk in a sensible way. The government would save more lives if it put the money it spends on the war on terror into fighting heart disease, but can you imagine them suggesting this?
> Actually the vast majority of the country doesn't feel like that unless you're predisposed to this sort of worrying.
This is exactly my point - I'm not saying everyone is worried - but the argument of the gun lobby is that if everyone carried guns (with the presumption they might have to use them, otherwise what's the point?) they could stop the bad guys. By definition if everyone did this, there would be a low level, insiduous acceptance that you might need it.
Quite frankly I want to live in a society where the very thought of getting shot is so out there as to not cross my mind. Thankfully I do and always have.
> Not saying that guns aren't an issue, just that this worry isn't there.
It must be, or are you saying that the millions of handguns and semi automatic weapons in circulation are just for hunting and sport? The numbers don't make sense.
I think like you say it varies since naturally the US is huge and you can't compare CT with downtown Detroit or rural Texas. I've been a few times to Portland, and feel exceptionally safe in the downtown area (christ people walk and cycle around and its actually quite pleasant), but then when I go to our office in Atlanta, my colleagues are incredulous that I would go for a run on the streets and they all believe that downtown is a free-fire zone. Not without some justification as one person I know had a friend shot and killed on his street and I learned that somebody else in the organisationwas killed a couple of years back (a domestic shooting - but naturally made easier by the fact that handguns are everywhere).
> I'm much more worried about the terrible driving than being shot.
Me too, but then we're trying to think rationally about an emotive subject. Generally people don't perceive risk in a sensible way. The government would save more lives if it put the money it spends on the war on terror into fighting heart disease, but can you imagine them suggesting this?
1
In reply to yorkshireman:
No I meant among myself and as far as I know my friends and family here, we don't worry about it, not that there isn't a real problem of millions of guns in civilian hands.
Right, innocent people get shot on the streets of Manhattan (and London) from time to time, but that doesn't make them feel dangerous to walk about in.
Yes exactly, the gone issue gets huge media coverage, and too many people are killed, but it's a distraction from the real problems in the country, just like immigration and benefits fraud gets in Britain. (For the record, mass shootings are obviously worse than benefit fraud, I shouldn't have to state this but someone will make a comment like I don't realise this.)
> It must be, or are you saying that the millions of handguns and semi automatic weapons in circulation are just for hunting and sport? The numbers don't make sense.
No I meant among myself and as far as I know my friends and family here, we don't worry about it, not that there isn't a real problem of millions of guns in civilian hands.
> I think like you say it varies since naturally the US is huge and you can't compare CT with downtown Detroit or rural Texas. I've been a few times to Portland, and feel exceptionally safe in the downtown area (christ people walk and cycle around and its actually quite pleasant), but then when I go to our office in Atlanta, my colleagues are incredulous that I would go for a run on the streets and they all believe that downtown is a free-fire zone. Not without some justification as one person I know had a friend shot and killed on his street and I learned that somebody else in the organisationwas killed a couple of years back (a domestic shooting - but naturally made easier by the fact that handguns are everywhere).
Right, innocent people get shot on the streets of Manhattan (and London) from time to time, but that doesn't make them feel dangerous to walk about in.
> Me too, but then we're trying to think rationally about an emotive subject. Generally people don't perceive risk in a sensible way. The government would save more lives if it put the money it spends on the war on terror into fighting heart disease, but can you imagine them suggesting this?
Yes exactly, the gone issue gets huge media coverage, and too many people are killed, but it's a distraction from the real problems in the country, just like immigration and benefits fraud gets in Britain. (For the record, mass shootings are obviously worse than benefit fraud, I shouldn't have to state this but someone will make a comment like I don't realise this.)
In reply to dsh: have you asked? My experience was that they weren't obvious but a lot of people had a gun, usually a revolver in the house somewhere 'just in case'. This was in Colorado mostly
In reply to dsh:
I think it depends.
I live in south jersey just outside Camden 2 miles one way I'm in a rich safe area,1 mile the other and kids are getting hit by stray bullets.
But further south in jersey is like a southern state, hunting and trucks dominate. The amount of guns there worry me, especially with a kid on the way. I don't feel threatened at all but I worry about kids playing in houses with guns.
I think it depends.
I live in south jersey just outside Camden 2 miles one way I'm in a rich safe area,1 mile the other and kids are getting hit by stray bullets.
But further south in jersey is like a southern state, hunting and trucks dominate. The amount of guns there worry me, especially with a kid on the way. I don't feel threatened at all but I worry about kids playing in houses with guns.
1
1
In reply to radddogg:
I guess we've many of us seen this, but here's Obama's speech.
youtube.com/watch?v=QovJ_x9i5X8&
Reminds one of what a great politician he is - well, he'd have to be, to be the US president in spite of being black - and why so many had such great hopes of him. It's such a shame the US system prevented him from doing as much as he could have done.
jcm
I guess we've many of us seen this, but here's Obama's speech.
youtube.com/watch?v=QovJ_x9i5X8&
Reminds one of what a great politician he is - well, he'd have to be, to be the US president in spite of being black - and why so many had such great hopes of him. It's such a shame the US system prevented him from doing as much as he could have done.
jcm
12
1
1
1
In reply to radddogg:
As I understand it, back in the 18th century when it was the fashion in England( can't include Scotland in this one) to carry a sword or a knife, there was a problem with knife crime. It was legislated against. Result was less casualties from knife and sword, at a cost of some social,tension from the knife and sword folk.
It can be done. But as someone else has commented the US has little appetite to confront the gun lobby even over the issue of unstable folk having access.
As I understand it, back in the 18th century when it was the fashion in England( can't include Scotland in this one) to carry a sword or a knife, there was a problem with knife crime. It was legislated against. Result was less casualties from knife and sword, at a cost of some social,tension from the knife and sword folk.
It can be done. But as someone else has commented the US has little appetite to confront the gun lobby even over the issue of unstable folk having access.
In reply to radddogg:
As they say 'The best way to prevent gun violence is to be armed. That's why war zones are so safe.' When I lived in the US we decided not to have guns in the house since a study showed you were much more likely to die from guns if you had them at home.
As they say 'The best way to prevent gun violence is to be armed. That's why war zones are so safe.' When I lived in the US we decided not to have guns in the house since a study showed you were much more likely to die from guns if you had them at home.
3
In reply to radddogg:
Sadly no. It hasn't in the past and I doubt it will happen any time soon. I'm glad that Obama has come out and said that "thoughts and prayers" won't help solve it but I doubt that will make people wake up and realise that something must happen.
I heard on the news that there are politicians who are involved with the NRA so hence one of the reasons why there's little appetite to change the gun laws.
I like shooting, don't get me wrong I enjoy it but I couldn't justify having some of the arsenals that a lot of American gun enthusiasts have - it seems unnecessary in the extreme for anybody who isn't military or police to have access to some of the weapons you can buy in the USA. Really why would anybody actually need a sub-machine gun for example? I just can't justify it.
Sadly no. It hasn't in the past and I doubt it will happen any time soon. I'm glad that Obama has come out and said that "thoughts and prayers" won't help solve it but I doubt that will make people wake up and realise that something must happen.
I heard on the news that there are politicians who are involved with the NRA so hence one of the reasons why there's little appetite to change the gun laws.
I like shooting, don't get me wrong I enjoy it but I couldn't justify having some of the arsenals that a lot of American gun enthusiasts have - it seems unnecessary in the extreme for anybody who isn't military or police to have access to some of the weapons you can buy in the USA. Really why would anybody actually need a sub-machine gun for example? I just can't justify it.
1
1
In reply to radddogg: A straightforward bit of journalism from Piers Morgans about the current situation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0347qlf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0347qlf
1
In reply to radddogg:
Piers Morgan had a go and got booted out of the country for trying to educate the natives.
Piers Morgan had a go and got booted out of the country for trying to educate the natives.
1
1
In reply to radddogg:
shootings are a small price to pay for living in a free-er society....unlike totalitarian uk
shootings are a small price to pay for living in a free-er society....unlike totalitarian uk
2
9
In reply to _sllab_:
There times and places for most things, including calling people a f*ckwit. You are a f*ckwit
There times and places for most things, including calling people a f*ckwit. You are a f*ckwit
10
2
In reply to _sllab_:
It is simply incorrect to say the UK is a totalitarian state.
A totalitarian state
-of or relating to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
It is simply incorrect to say the UK is a totalitarian state.
A totalitarian state
-of or relating to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
1
In reply to _sllab_:
Anyway you completely misunderstand freedom. Laws that prevent people without an adequate reason from holding a firearm increase people's freedom over all. Yes I don't have the instant right to buy a gun, however my children will have the freedom to go to school without fearing being shot.
You seem to think anarchism is the ultimate freedom. That is incredibly ignorant.
Anyway you completely misunderstand freedom. Laws that prevent people without an adequate reason from holding a firearm increase people's freedom over all. Yes I don't have the instant right to buy a gun, however my children will have the freedom to go to school without fearing being shot.
You seem to think anarchism is the ultimate freedom. That is incredibly ignorant.
1
1
In reply to _sllab_:
For heaven's sake. Can no-one recognise irony? Are you Americans?
> shootings are a small price to pay for living in a free-er society....unlike totalitarian uk
For heaven's sake. Can no-one recognise irony? Are you Americans?
1
In reply to digby:
Many Americans are appalled about the stance on guns.
But I think the U.S. has less freedoms than we have, you can't drink alcohol in public, abortion rights, gay rights, drinking age, land access to name a few.
Many Americans are appalled about the stance on guns.
But I think the U.S. has less freedoms than we have, you can't drink alcohol in public, abortion rights, gay rights, drinking age, land access to name a few.
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Haven't they knocked gay rights on the head? Same sex marriage is now legal in the US.
I am pretty impressed with that one. I think Frank the Husky reckoned ban laws wouldn't change in 20 years in the US but I would have said the same about gay marriage. It seems to me that if you want to change anything big and controversial in the US you have to run it through the courts until it comes down to a small handful of judges. You then have to either hope or manipulate the majority agree with you.
> But I think the U.S. has less freedoms than we have, you can't drink alcohol in public, abortion rights, gay rights, drinking age, land access to name a few.
Haven't they knocked gay rights on the head? Same sex marriage is now legal in the US.
I am pretty impressed with that one. I think Frank the Husky reckoned ban laws wouldn't change in 20 years in the US but I would have said the same about gay marriage. It seems to me that if you want to change anything big and controversial in the US you have to run it through the courts until it comes down to a small handful of judges. You then have to either hope or manipulate the majority agree with you.
In reply to ByEek:
Changing the second (or indeed any) amendment is slightly harder. Once congress approves it then 75% of individual state legislatures have to also ratify it.
There's an interview with Piers Morgan on the problems of updating the gun laws: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0347x4g , there's definite splits between urban/rural communities and also the old Union/Confederate divide.
Changing the second (or indeed any) amendment is slightly harder. Once congress approves it then 75% of individual state legislatures have to also ratify it.
There's an interview with Piers Morgan on the problems of updating the gun laws: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0347x4g , there's definite splits between urban/rural communities and also the old Union/Confederate divide.
In reply to radddogg:
Simple electoral arithmethic explained here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34429918
Simple electoral arithmethic explained here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34429918
In reply to yorkshireman:
You're right. Actually, it wouldn't even take a further amendment, all it needs is a sensible judgment from the Supreme Court with a rational modern interpretation of the second amendment, particularly the 'well-regulated Militia' bit.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Of course, my idea of a rational modern interpretation would be that, in the absence of a standing national army, the founding fathers were reserving the right of citizens to keep weapons so that they could be called up to be members of an organised militia. Since there is now not only a standing army but the National Guard and armed local, state and federal law-enforcement agencies, clearly they now constitute the 'well-regulated militia' envisaged by the 2nd amendment and there is, therefore, no guaranteed right for an individual citizen who is not a member of any regulated militia to bear arms.
Until there is a precedential SCotUS decision, there will always be people who will argue all armed US citizen constitute a well-regulated militia. Like this mangled logic:
http://americanmilitiaassociation.com/well-regulated-militia/?gclid=CLi-xqK...
I'm with this guy:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/25/1173770/-What-IS-a-well-regulated-...
Worth checking out for the rogue's gallery of patently not well-regulated nutters involved in recent mass shootings.
> If those stats are correct they really are sickening - the sort of thing you'd expect in Nicaragua or Guatamala. And the annoying this is the pro-gun lobby clinging to the 2nd ammendment - well here's the clue - it's an ammendment - when we see something is wrong in a democracy we change it, otherwise rich whites would still have slaves and women wouldn't be able to vote.
You're right. Actually, it wouldn't even take a further amendment, all it needs is a sensible judgment from the Supreme Court with a rational modern interpretation of the second amendment, particularly the 'well-regulated Militia' bit.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Of course, my idea of a rational modern interpretation would be that, in the absence of a standing national army, the founding fathers were reserving the right of citizens to keep weapons so that they could be called up to be members of an organised militia. Since there is now not only a standing army but the National Guard and armed local, state and federal law-enforcement agencies, clearly they now constitute the 'well-regulated militia' envisaged by the 2nd amendment and there is, therefore, no guaranteed right for an individual citizen who is not a member of any regulated militia to bear arms.
Until there is a precedential SCotUS decision, there will always be people who will argue all armed US citizen constitute a well-regulated militia. Like this mangled logic:
http://americanmilitiaassociation.com/well-regulated-militia/?gclid=CLi-xqK...
I'm with this guy:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/25/1173770/-What-IS-a-well-regulated-...
Worth checking out for the rogue's gallery of patently not well-regulated nutters involved in recent mass shootings.
1
In reply to ByEek:
Yeah but we've had this Kim Davis? issue where gay couples weren't being granted marriage licenses.
But in principal, yes that finally changed.
There was a post about abortion rights V gun rights on facebook. How you cant just get an abortion, you have to watch video's, wait so long, parental consent, travel to the only clinic etc.. but a young lad can often just walk in and buy a gun..
Yeah but we've had this Kim Davis? issue where gay couples weren't being granted marriage licenses.
But in principal, yes that finally changed.
There was a post about abortion rights V gun rights on facebook. How you cant just get an abortion, you have to watch video's, wait so long, parental consent, travel to the only clinic etc.. but a young lad can often just walk in and buy a gun..
> Of course, my idea of a rational modern interpretation would be that, in the absence of a standing national army, the founding fathers were reserving the right of citizens to keep weapons so that they could be called up to be members of an organised militia. Since there is now not only a standing army but the National Guard and armed local, state and federal law-enforcement agencies, clearly they now constitute the 'well-regulated militia' envisaged by the 2nd amendment and there is, therefore, no guaranteed right for an individual citizen who is not a member of any regulated militia to bear arms.
>As I understand the history of this the militias were intended to protect citizens against the federal govt lest it should seek to impose itself on the states. Many Americans outside the Beltway (and especially in the gun-toting Old South, still have a deep distrust of Washington so the existence of a standing army would probably be used to justify the continuation of the 2nd Amendment rights rather than be taken as a reason to end them.
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Five years old but this article highlights some of the lack of freedom in the US, even when it exists theoretically, well.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/quality_american_...
Five years old but this article highlights some of the lack of freedom in the US, even when it exists theoretically, well.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/quality_american_...
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
Have a listen to that Piers Morgan piece posted earlier - in it he talks about how a "Southerner" said something similar.
I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that people don't like being told what to do, least of all Americans.
> As I understand the history of this the militias were intended to protect citizens against the federal govt lest it should seek to impose itself on the states. Many Americans outside the Beltway (and especially in the gun-toting Old South, still have a deep distrust of Washington so the existence of a standing army would probably be used to justify the continuation of the 2nd Amendment rights rather than be taken as a reason to end them.
Have a listen to that Piers Morgan piece posted earlier - in it he talks about how a "Southerner" said something similar.
I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that people don't like being told what to do, least of all Americans.
In reply to zebidee:
I think it comes down to the disproportionate power of pressure groups in any democracy magnified by the quirks of the US political system as outlined higher up the thread in the BBC piece I posted a link to.
Career politicians will always listen to pro-gun pressure groups because even tho they are a minority they are a minority that will always remember if you take their guns away and will punish you at the ballot box. Pro-gun control people will more likely accept the situation as intractable or even forget which way you voted (assuming they ever knew). So the smart career politician either keeps his/her head down if they are in a Pro-Control area or fights the good fight on behalf of the NRA (which will also reward them with a campaign contribution) if they are in a Pro-Gun area because that's where the votes are won and lost. Ally that to the fact that every state, no matter how populous or how empty, has the same two Senate votes and a few hundred thousand pro-gun voters in Wyoming carry as much sway as millions of pro-control Californians.
> I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that people don't like being told what to do, least of all Americans.
I think it comes down to the disproportionate power of pressure groups in any democracy magnified by the quirks of the US political system as outlined higher up the thread in the BBC piece I posted a link to.
Career politicians will always listen to pro-gun pressure groups because even tho they are a minority they are a minority that will always remember if you take their guns away and will punish you at the ballot box. Pro-gun control people will more likely accept the situation as intractable or even forget which way you voted (assuming they ever knew). So the smart career politician either keeps his/her head down if they are in a Pro-Control area or fights the good fight on behalf of the NRA (which will also reward them with a campaign contribution) if they are in a Pro-Gun area because that's where the votes are won and lost. Ally that to the fact that every state, no matter how populous or how empty, has the same two Senate votes and a few hundred thousand pro-gun voters in Wyoming carry as much sway as millions of pro-control Californians.
1
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Well not really. She was dispatched by the law pretty quickly. Ok - so she had her 15 minutes of fame, but the law is the law.
> Yeah but we've had this Kim Davis? issue where gay couples weren't being granted marriage licenses.
Well not really. She was dispatched by the law pretty quickly. Ok - so she had her 15 minutes of fame, but the law is the law.
1
1
In reply to ByEek:
It wasnt pretty quickly, it was a long time after the law was passed. The best part of 3 months she wasn't granting licenses to marry.
You may think that's not much but for couples wanting to marry, especially for immigration reasons, thats a significant period of time.
> Well not really. She was dispatched by the law pretty quickly. Ok - so she had her 15 minutes of fame, but the law is the law.
It wasnt pretty quickly, it was a long time after the law was passed. The best part of 3 months she wasn't granting licenses to marry.
You may think that's not much but for couples wanting to marry, especially for immigration reasons, thats a significant period of time.
1
In reply to radddogg:
Although not directly about gun control, I thought the Reggie Yates documentary from last week was quite insightful in terms of how the issue is deeply woven into American society in many ways:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06fq2v6/reggie-yates-race-riots-usa
It's not a simple as backwards yahoos wantin' the gunn'ment to stop meddlin' in their constitutionally prescribed right to shewt things
Although not directly about gun control, I thought the Reggie Yates documentary from last week was quite insightful in terms of how the issue is deeply woven into American society in many ways:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06fq2v6/reggie-yates-race-riots-usa
It's not a simple as backwards yahoos wantin' the gunn'ment to stop meddlin' in their constitutionally prescribed right to shewt things
1
In reply to ByEek:
The difference between the two topics boils down to "is it mentioned in the constitutional rights". Sadly the right to "bare arms is" (however you want to interpret it) I can't say for gay rights but I suspect it is not specifically mentioned that they can't marry. Thankfully.
> Haven't they knocked gay rights on the head? Same sex marriage is now legal in the US.
The difference between the two topics boils down to "is it mentioned in the constitutional rights". Sadly the right to "bare arms is" (however you want to interpret it) I can't say for gay rights but I suspect it is not specifically mentioned that they can't marry. Thankfully.
In reply to cap'nChino:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Bare_Arms
> The difference between the two topics boils down to "is it mentioned in the constitutional rights". Sadly the right to "bare arms is" (however you want to interpret it) I can't say for gay rights but I suspect it is not specifically mentioned that they can't marry. Thankfully.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Bare_Arms
In reply to zebidee:
Ha, I have to be honest. I thought it was Bare not Bear. I don't understand then what can be so confusing about the 'right to bear arms' http://orig15.deviantart.net/25b4/f/2008/090/c/f/the_right_to_bear_arms_by_...
>
Ha, I have to be honest. I thought it was Bare not Bear. I don't understand then what can be so confusing about the 'right to bear arms' http://orig15.deviantart.net/25b4/f/2008/090/c/f/the_right_to_bear_arms_by_...
In reply to cap'nChino:
True. But it is written in an amendment. You know - something that can change. Prohibition was an amendment at one point too I believe so nothing is impossible. It seems the biggest problem is getting over the fear of the gun lobby. They do have guns after all!
> The difference between the two topics boils down to "is it mentioned in the constitutional rights". Sadly the right to "bare arms is" (however you want to interpret it) I can't say for gay rights but I suspect it is not specifically mentioned that they can't marry. Thankfully.
True. But it is written in an amendment. You know - something that can change. Prohibition was an amendment at one point too I believe so nothing is impossible. It seems the biggest problem is getting over the fear of the gun lobby. They do have guns after all!
In reply to ByEek:
I believe that there are only two parts of the US constitution that cannot be amended, these appear to be in Article five according to Wikipedia: proportional distribution of tax revenue and equal representation for States.
I believe that there are only two parts of the US constitution that cannot be amended, these appear to be in Article five according to Wikipedia: proportional distribution of tax revenue and equal representation for States.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...