UKC

/ America and Guns

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
mypyrex - on 15 Feb 2018

The latest shooting in America has done nothing to convince me that Americans do not have an unhealthy, weird obsession with guns.

I can understand ownership of guns for (genuine) sport target shooting or for hunting(for the pot) purposes but can seen no logical reason for Joe Public being able to buy assault rifles and the like.

People say that the only way to stop a bad person with a gun is to give the good ones guns. Do they want a re-run of Gun Fight at the OK Coraal?

Also, why do so many of these shootings take place at schools?

Words fail me.

The Lemming - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to mypyrex:

Its because the schools are not armed.  That is what the NRA will say.

 

Post edited at 08:34
mypyrex - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to The Lemming:

> Its because the schools are not armed.  That is what the NRA will say.

>


Yes; and Trump has the temerity to talk about violence in the UK. First class knobhead

DerwentDiluted - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to mypyrex:

The second amendment is no more than an archaic covenant with death, and the cognitive dissonance between the belief in the need for civillians to be armed against a potential tyrannical government and the real life cost and consequences of that level of gun ownership, is, to this observer, staggering and depressing.

A solution? I don't believe there is one.

The Lemming - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to mypyrex:

This helped explain to me what, who and why the NRA will always win. Its not work safe because of a bit of swearing. The occasional  F word

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ECYMvjU52E

Rigid Raider - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to mypyrex:

My brother who lives in Michigan sometimes sends me long emails puzzling about Americans, guns, anxiety and therapy. His wife and all of her friends go for weekly counselling sessions; he believes the American way of life deliberately creates anxiety by exploiting a deep-seated folk memory from only a few generations back when white Americans were fighting for land and spreading west. The more he learns about the methods they used to dispossess native Americans of their territories the more angry he becomes. The medical profession and the gun manufacturers do nothing to discourage the national paranoia. 

jkarran - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to mypyrex:

Since America will (indeed probably can) never seriously address it's gun violence epidemic from the gun ownership end the 'why schools?' question is interesting and if addressed, understood and the findings acted upon over a generation or two could be key to significantly reducing harm. I doubt family annihilation will be as solvable a problem.

It's interesting given the hysteria around 'terrorism' and the obvious ease with which one could commit a terrible atrocity in the US that there is basically no Islamist mass shooting. To me this suggests the numbers motivated to commit atrocity for their cause must either be minuscule, out of all proportion to the fear whipped up in their name or incredibly well managed. Personally I suspect the former is the dominant factor but if I'm wrong and it's the latter then perhaps the same approach could be extended to those people and groups who do actually commit mass killings on a near daily basis with some effect.

jk

The Lemming - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to mypyrex:

I had no idea Australia had the same problem but solved it. Guess how long it took after a masacer in 1996?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA

Might have a swear word.

In reply to mypyrex:

Schools are always the best places for shootouts as there are lots of people and they are not armed. I read the news about the latest shooting in Florida and someone from the public rightly said "This country is going nowhere and its only going bananas."

mypyrex - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Rigid Raider:

I was only reading a few nights ago about how white settlers treated the indiginous population of America. Terrible. Ethnic cleansing is nothing new.

Looking back to when people of my generation  were kids we regularly watched the Hollywood versions of North American history - cowboys(good) and Indians(bad).

Thankfully I can honestly say I have a different view nowadays.

marsbar - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to mypyrex:

I don't know the details of this particular shooting, but some of the school shootings are carried out by pupils.  School is not a happy place for a lot of young people.

Teenagers have a lot going on as they change from child to adult and their brains are "rewiring" in a similar way to toddlers going through the tantrum stage.  

Its not a good idea for people who are not entirely in control of their emotions to be able to get guns.  

The whole gun rights thing is like a cult.  

krikoman - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to The Lemming:

Interesting that most NRA supporters would be the first to complain about the government hiding information and yet seem quite hape not that have any information in the first place.

Post edited at 09:30
paul_the_northerner - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to jkarran:

interesting point

America does seem to have very few major terrorist incidents (that i am aware of) in the past few years compared to Europe, i can only assume this is to do with their border security (which is very strict). 

apparently this is the 18th school shooting this year, people shooting up schools for their own personal issues is seemingly accepted by american society as a regrettably unavoidable incident and does not warrant a look at current gun laws. 

it is a shocking waste of life that is sadly repeated over and over with the same government go to line "now is not the time to discuss gun law".

 

Post edited at 09:31
jkarran - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to paul_the_northerner:

America's land and sea borders are porous to people, product and even more so to ideas. I'm not sure fortress America safe behind its fence stands much scrutiny.

jk

handofgod on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to mypyrex:

Please can anyone confirm, since 9/11;

How many deaths there has been in the USA from Islamic related terror attacks 

Vs

How many deaths there has been in the USA caused by mass shootings not related to Islamic terror 

The morons are fighting the wrong war.

 

Post edited at 11:23
Jimbocz - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to paul_the_northerner:

> it is a shocking waste of life that is sadly repeated over and over with the same government go to line "now is not the time to discuss gun law".

I'm not sure we know the skin colour of the shooter, that will determine if "Thoughts and Prayers" are sufficient and "now is not the time" or we need an immediate travel ban on Venezuelans.

 

Yanis Nayu - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to mypyrex:

It’s a waste of everyone’s time and energy having an “America and guns” debate. 

marsbar - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Jimbocz:

Pale, loner, alleged to have been abusive to ex girlfriend.  Ex student of the school.  

Still, now is not the time, thoughts and prayers *sarcasm*

Stichtplate on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> It’s a waste of everyone’s time and energy having an “America and guns” debate. 

Agreed. It's also not worth making comparisons with how countries like Australia dealt with mass shootings. Plenty of other countries  have high rates of gun ownership without high rates of gun deaths.

America is F***ed as far as gun ownership and crime goes, for a whole mess of complex political, sociological and psychological reasons, this has now become impossible to rectify.

Ian W - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Jimbocz:

> I'm not sure we know the skin colour of the shooter, that will determine if "Thoughts and Prayers" are sufficient and "now is not the time" or we need an immediate travel ban on Venezuelans.

The only "thoughts and prayers" are thinking what group of people other than gun owners they can blame, and praying that they wont have to give up the weapons.

Yanis Nayu - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Stichtplate:

I don’t know if it’s possible to rectify or not, but it’s clear there is not one iota of political will to try. 

marsbar - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to jkarran:

I think that if schools could find a way to address the macho culture and nurture the loners they might be on to something.  

This was a 19 year old who had lost his birth family, been adopted, his adopted father died a few years ago and his mum died 3 months ago. I’d want an ex pupil who that happened to, to feel able to pop into school for a cup of tea and a chat, not to come back to school with a gun.  Schools over here are sometimes the only place where kids feel cared about.  

On a more practical note, given the prevalence of guns in the US then why aren’t there fences and metal detectors?  

 

marsbar - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I see what you are saying, but I also think that in this global world it’s easier than ever to make it clear to people that their norm isn’t normal in other countries.  Waste of time or not, change takes time.  

Ciro - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to paul_the_northerner:

> America does seem to have very few major terrorist incidents (that i am aware of) in the past few years compared to Europe, i can only assume this is to do with their border security (which is very strict). 

I'd assume it's more to do with strategic reasons. What's the purpose of a terrorist attack? I imagine, broadly speaking, one of three goals: draw an opponent in to escalate violence, scare them off to take back control of an area, or as an advertising campaign for the people you're trying to recruit to your cause.

The US is generally at the forefront and so doesn't require much drawing in, and unlikely to ever be scared off - and since they're in there, it's probably more effective marketing to hit them more locally. So it likely makes sense to direct their external attacks mainly towards the countries that are slightly less active players.

 

 

paul_the_northerner - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to marsbar:

> On a more practical note, given the prevalence of guns in the US then why aren’t there fences and metal detectors?  

i think doing something that would be admitting that there is a major problem which they don't seem to want to do. Not only that but there are Campus carry laws, so in some states it is 100% legal to carry a gun on say collage or university grounds so blocking people with guns would infringe on the whole second amendment thing. 

 

They are more likely to arm teachers and senior students than stop people walking into campus with a gun. scary stuff.

Post edited at 12:58
handofgod on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to marsbar:

Some do have fences and metal detectors but these tend to be in the black areas....

 

 

Ciro - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to marsbar:

> On a more practical note, given the prevalence of guns in the US then why aren’t there fences and metal detectors?  

I believe it's not uncommon in inner-city schools in high crime areas - I watched a documentary a while ago, where they were talking to kids who had to go through metal detectors and security guard pat downs on the way in every day. Was quite heartbreaking.

Metal detectors and full-time security staff must be pretty costly though - imagine how much infrastructure would be required for getting 1000 kids through the doors of a large high school in a short space of time to start the day.

And if you're not in an inner-city school a lot of kids will be bussed in - so while stopping knives at the gate might cut down on serious escalation of violence resulting from a disagreement during the school day, when it comes to mass shooters there's probably not much point in putting the security at the gates if someone can just shoot up the bus

Roadrunner5 - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to mypyrex:

Now's not the time... there has just been a school shooting, don't talk about such matters trying to make political points FFS...

Wait at least a few more days..

 

And then there will have been another mass shooting, so wait a few more days, then there will have been another... 18 mass shootings in 45 days. Prayers and thoughts..

 

Armed teachers will do nothing, this guy set up a killing field, student's rushed out due to a fire alarm into his killing field.

Roadrunner5 - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Ciro:

I taught in a school like that. Fire doors were padlocked shut. It was like entering an airport terminal.

As you say terrorists now attack airports at check ins, they can just shoot up bus lines. They need to sort out mental health and gun regulations.

Roadrunner5 - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to handofgod:

https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence/index.html

Not exactly your question but general idea. Note this includes attacks elsewhere on Americans too, so greatly over estimates that side.

Stichtplate on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> I don’t know if it’s possible to rectify or not, but it’s clear there is not one iota of political will to try. 

The whole country is sodden with undocumented firearms. The prevalence of gun fairs means that acquiring unlicensed firearms is hassle free. Huge swathes of the American public equate gun ownership with "Freedom".

In all other first world countries the possession of firearms, for the most part, falls neatly into two categories: military or sport. In the US huge swathes of the gun owning public have acquired guns for the purpose of "self defence". As far as I'm aware the US is unique in this. Psychologically speaking this sets many US gun owners apart from, for instance, the vast majority of UK gun owners.

I can't see any solution to the US's gun problem beyond some sort of vast multi-generational re-education programme and frankly, I just can't see that ever happening.

Roadrunner5 - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Stichtplate:

I think that's partly true.

I think we can start now limiting cartridge sizes, buy back programs, reeducation, mental health programs, licensing issues. It will take time but I don't think its a unwinnable battle. There will always be gun deaths but they can be much less.

marsbar - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Roadrunner5:

I know it just moves the problem, but it might make the numbers lower.  School buses could drop off and pick up in a fenced off area.  Many uk schools have a gated car park these days.  

dabble on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to mypyrex:

Chris Rock had the best idea, make bullets a $1000 each. There's no way they can control the amount of guns now, but they can control the ammo.

Ciro - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Roadrunner5:

Indeed. I can kind of understand why someone might be reluctant to give up the right to carry a handgun for personal protection in a violent society (putting the issue of the prevalence of guns escalating the levels of violence in society aside). 

But I can't, for the life of me, understand why anyone wants assault rifles to be freely available to the public. 

Coel Hellier - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Ciro:

> But I can't, for the life of me, understand why anyone wants assault rifles to be freely available to the public.

Because Obama or Bernie Sanders or someone is going to impose communism on them!  

Roadrunner5 - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Ciro:

yes, hand guns and hunting rifles are part of US culture and I can see why people want them, but there is just no argument for assault rifles. They say its to prevent the Government over powering them.. which is crazy.

TBH as a non gun person I've considered getting one. I work in a private conservative schools so we probably have guns on the campus, I know students who have AR 15's and a number of students with mental health problems, massive anger issues and have guns. 

I take the student's to a firing range as part of my physics class and we shoot at targets with various types of rifles. Guns are everywhere here so I at least want the kids to know how to make a rifle safe and carry them safely.

Phil79 - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to paul_the_northerner:

> interesting point

> America does seem to have very few major terrorist incidents (that i am aware of) in the past few years compared to Europe, i can only assume this is to do with their border security (which is very strict). 

But, yet the likelihood of being killed with a gun in the US is massively higher than anywhere in Europe, its more comparable with developing world countries.

In fact, the rate of suicide by gun (6.3 per 100K population) is actually far higher than murder by gun ( 3.6). So, while the mass shooting might get all the media attention, most 'gun death' is as a result of suicide.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

> it is a shocking waste of life that is sadly repeated over and over with the same government go to line "now is not the time to discuss gun law".

Agreed. Its not about to change anytime soon. Maybe in few generations when the gun control advocates actually get organised and the culture changes.

Trangia on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Phil79:

> But, yet the likelihood of being killed with a gun in the US is massively higher than anywhere in Europe, its more comparable with developing world countries.

 

Apparently more Americans have died as a result of home grown gun crime and suicides than the total number of American War Dead from WW1, WW2 , Korea, Vietnam, Gulf Wars, Afghanistan and other world conflicts since 1914.

 

Ciro - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Roadrunner5:

Yeah, the idea of the citizens of the US using assault rifles to defeat a government that's armed with the world's most expensive military, and reaper drones, seems like the most depressingly ludicrous fantasy of the lot

Stuart en Écosse - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to mypyrex:

Pakistan and guns

Yemen and guns

Afghanistan and guns.

Etc.

What’s special about America?

Stichtplate on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> I think we can start now limiting cartridge sizes, buy back programs, reeducation, mental health programs, licensing issues. It will take time but I don't think its a unwinnable battle. There will always be gun deaths but they can be much less.

A .22 long is a lethal cartridge, how small do you want to go and how successful do you think effectively outlawing hunting in the US is going to be?

Mental health programmes and re-education: you work in the American eduction system? how's your funding at the moment and would you expect the vast additional sums required to become available anytime soon?

Licensing is a more viable route to tackle gun control, but the huge numbers of unlicensed guns already in circulation would hamper its effectiveness .

Buyback schemes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

300,000,000 in US circulation and if the scheme reduced that number appreciably, the blackmarket value would go through the roof. A Sisyphean task.

Someone else suggested increasing the cost of ammunition to $1000 a round. Making a bullet is relatively straightforward, costs pence and requires a couple of hundred quid in equipment (if that). Thousands of UK shooters produce their own ammo. Any huge price hike would just produce a correspondingly huge cottage industry to supply the black market.

 

I really wish there was a simple answer to all this, but there just isn't.

Phil79 - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Ciro:

> Yeah, the idea of the citizens of the US using assault rifles to defeat a government that's armed with the world's most expensive military, and reaper drones, seems like the most depressingly ludicrous fantasy of the lot

Well if that ever came to pass, you'd end up with an unending gorilla warfare situation, like all recent conflicts involving asymmetric forces. Not pretty.

America does seem to be unique in its paranoia distrust of authority.

Post edited at 14:50
The Lemming - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to mypyrex:

I think I know a way to start the rehab of American Gun Control.

 

Disband the NRA.  Obviously something will take their place but by then hopefully legislation will curb their enthusiasm.

Roadrunner5 - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Stichtplate:

I meant the australian approach, 5 bullets max or something. There's just no need for more in a non military setting.

Stichtplate on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> I meant the australian approach, 5 bullets max or something. There's just no need for more in a non military setting.

You mean magazine capacity? Most countries, UK included, have no such restrictions. I don't think this is where the problem lies.

cander - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to mypyrex:

It’s all very sad, but it’s not my problem - Americans killing other Americans with guns - it’s what they want, and it’s what they’ve got. They don’t care what we think, indeed it’s because of their history with us they feel the need to have unrestricted ownership of small arms. If they are content to allow the slaughter of gun crime then I’m not going to try and pointlessly convince them to control small arms sales - they could change the law anytime, but they chose not to, so it’s clear they consider the occasional/ regular slaughter at schools, concerts, clubs, or wherever an acceptable consequence of their right to bear arms. Apocryphal factoid more Americans have been killed by legally owned small arms since JFK was assassinated than have been killed in all the wars America has ever been involved in including the civil war. Let them get on with it - the solution is obvious and it’s in their hands, stupid arseholes.

 

jkarran - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Stuart en Écosse:

> What’s special about America?

It's a supposedly developed nation with unusual levels of gun violence; especially and uniquely high levels of gun violence perpetrated against school children, something it seems unwilling or unable to recognise and address. It's also English speaking, a culture exporter and we have strong historical ties so is rather more relatable than say Yemen, a war torn and underdeveloped nation with a very different culture.

jk

Post edited at 15:21
Stuart en Écosse - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to jkarran:

Yes to all of that, though your key word is ‘supposedly.’ I’m afraid I find the concept of America as culturally ‘foreign’ and alien as anywhere else in the world you care to name. Unfortunately a shared history plus their cunning disguise of language and dress makes them appear like they belong to what we like to think of as the civilised west.

If we can shrug our shoulders at random slaughter in other countries why not with the USA? It would be callous but not untrue to say “Ah it’s just what they do.”

Roadrunner5 - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Stichtplate:

"Mental health programmes and re-education: you work in the American eduction system? how's your funding at the moment and would you expect the vast additional sums required to become available anytime soon?"

I work in a private school so we are totally outside the education system. 

We tried to bring in a mental health awareness campaign and it led to a screaming match in the staff room with one 75 year old member of staff demanding we do not do it as we'll have kids walking around saying they are mentally ill because it's the trendy thing to do...

 

 

 

Roadrunner5 - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Stichtplate:

Australia did. The UK does in terms that guns are essentially illegal.

Other countries have wide gun ownership without this issue so it is far from the only step but the answer will be many small changes.

But we couldnt even ban bumpstocks after Vegas

We still allow those on the terror watch list to buy semi autoamatic assault rifles..

Post edited at 15:52
MonkeyPuzzle - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to jkarran:

I can't help but feel the school thing is linked to the supposedly ludicrously high-pressure social environment plus the apparent strong focus on competition (winners and losers) across sports and academic achievement in American high school. Of course I've no direct experience, but if the documentaries and dramas I'm sure most of us have seen go half way to providing a real picture, you could see how a mentally-fragile young person could become despairing and angry, before cracking, in such a place.

Or maybe it's just America's "frontier spirit" and one of those things.

Stichtplate on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> Australia did. The UK does in terms that guns are essentially illegal.

> Other countries have wide gun ownership without this issue so it is far from the only step but the answer will be many small changes.

> But we couldnt even ban bumpstocks after Vegas

> We still allow those on the terror watch list to buy semi autoamatic assault rifles..

You misunderstand the situation in the UK. Guns aren't illegal, they're just strictly licensed. Obtaining a firearms certificate is relatively straightforward, as long as you don't have a serious criminal record and your GP isn't aware of you having any mental health issues. Anything from a semi-automatic shotgun to military grade sniper rifles are legally owned. Even after Dunblane, handgun ownership was only largely banned on the mainland (the law still allows for legal possession in specific categories or under special circumstances).

Post edited at 17:06
Duncan Bourne - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to mypyrex:

Another video helpfully explaining the NRA position

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJqfNroFp8U

Roadrunner5 - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Stichtplate:

So they are banned or high regulated.. I lived in the UK for 33 years.

 

Stichtplate on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> So they are banned or high regulated.. I lived in the UK for 33 years.

It's true that you couldn't legally own a rifle like the AR-15 in the UK but most other categories are freely available. Some US states are more severe on aspects of gun ownership than the UK. I wouldn't say Britain was highly regulated in this regard, just sensible.

Don't see what your having lived in the UK has got to do with this, you were still under the impression that "guns are essentially illegal" here. Just not true.

elsewhere on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Stichtplate:

> It's true that you couldn't legally own a rifle like the AR-15 in the UK but most other categories are freely available.

Your local Asda must be very different to mine.

 

balmybaldwin - on 19:20 Thu
In reply to mypyrex:

I'm pretty sure Trump is about to announce armed guards or armed teachers or something...

"No child should be in danger in an American school"

 

Pursued by a bear - on 19:24 Thu
In reply to mypyrex:

You have to ask just what it will take for Americans to admit that their laws on gun ownership are fatally flawed in an all-too-literal sense?

T.

mypyrex - on 19:47 Thu
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> I'm pretty sure Trump is about to announce armed guards or armed teachers or something...

> "No child should be in danger in an American school"


Or announce that "Now is not the time to talk about gun control"

Stichtplate on 19:47 Thu
In reply to elsewhere:

> Your local Asda must be very different to mine.

OK smart arse.... freely available, if you can be bothered applying for a license.

Edit: and just to be clear, obtaining a firearms certificate in the UK is a lot less onerous than obtaining a driving license. The factors that have lead to the huge numbers of gun related deaths in the USA run a whole lot deeper than simply the rates of gun ownership.

Post edited at 19:52
Eric9Points - on 21:02 Thu
In reply to Stichtplate:

Yes, a number of factors influence gun deaths but the number of guns in society is a significant factor in gun deaths.

 

 

Stichtplate on 21:16 Thu
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Yes, a number of factors influence gun deaths but the number of guns in society is a significant factor in gun deaths.

Obviously, rates of gun ownership will have some effect on rates of gun death, especially when considering rates of gun suicide. But, surprisingly perhaps, there is hardly any statistically significant causal link between the two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Eric9Points - on 22:15 Thu
In reply to Stichtplate:

I had this discussion a decade or so ago on this site and a statistician took the available data (better than the sources you linked to) and confirmed the significance of that particular link, or eigenvector as he referred to it.

 

Post edited at 22:15
Stichtplate on 22:22 Thu
In reply to Eric9Points:

> I had this discussion a decade or so ago on this site and a statistician took the available data (better than the sources you linked to) and confirmed the significance of that particular link, or eigenvector as he referred to it.

Fair enough, but without your actual sources it's all just "my Dad's harder than your Dad".

Pete Pozman - on 22:54 Thu
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> I'm pretty sure Trump is about to announce armed guards or armed teachers or something...

> "No child should be in danger in an American school"

Its just his usual cack. If it had been someone shouting Allahuakhbar he'd be screaming for revenge   Instead he seems sure the shooter is mentally ill. I guess he is promising to abolish mental illness so that there simply won't be any people with psychiatric problems owning assault weapons because psychiatric problems won't exist anymore. When all Americans are sane, that's when gun atrocities will stop. 

Roadrunner5 - on 22:59 Thu
In reply to Stichtplate:

Compared to the US, they essentially are banned or highly regulated

i live in a constitutional state so we have no checks or anything. 

There’s very very few guns on the streets in the UK with the rate of fire a typical US gun can throw down.

 

 

Roadrunner5 - on 23:01 Thu
In reply to Pete Pozman:

as a teacher when the alarm goes off I am behind the students walking them out having closed doors and checked classrooms. Armed teachers would have been no use here.

most high schools in the us do have security but kids always let people in the locked doors. Ours do.

 

 

 

Rampikino - on 23:16 Thu
In reply to mypyrex:

The long-held claim that America is the leader of the free world is continually exposed as nothing more than bluff, bullying and money.

No leader of the free world would allow this to go on. But then, the "most powerful man on earth" (another myth), was bankrolled by the NRA to the tune of no less than $31mm in his presidential campaign...

MonkeyPuzzle - on 23:39 Thu
In reply to Rampikino:

> But then, the "most powerful man on earth" (another myth), was bankrolled by the NRA to the tune of no less than $31mm in his presidential campaign...

Is that what they call short money?

DenzelLN - on 23:50 Thu
In reply to mypyrex:

Im wondering if the idea of a group of average unorganised civilians with guns would stand a cat in hells chance against the American government in a civil war or unrest situation, it sounds ludicrous at worst and staggeringly optimistic at best to me.

The second amendment, i imagine was relevant back in the 18th century post independence, not so much now.

Some figures for you that i have stolen off Quora, from a user that has a lot more time than me to research....

In 2012 the number of gun related crimes per 100000 was 10.2 or one per every 10000 people, which equates to 32000 American gun crime victims.

In the UK, 2012 that figure was 0.25 per 100000 which works out at roughly 147 people.

And according to the Gun violence archive there have been 1624 mass shootings in the USA in the past 1870 days with 1875 dead and 6848 injured, with a mass shooting defined as four or more people shot in one incident.

So according to those stats every 9 out of 10 days a load of folk get shot somewhere in America, which is just f@cking stupid!!

And another thing which irks me is why are these people not referred to as terrorists? If that man was Muslim/Asian it would be "terror attack at high school"? 

 

 

 

Post edited at 23:52
DenzelLN - on 23:51 Thu
In reply to Rampikino:

The funny thing is, is that the USA is technically the most un-free nation on earth with the highest percentage of prisoners per capita on the planet. 

Robert Durran - on 00:02 Fri
In reply to DenzelLN:

> And another thing which irks me is why are these people not referred to as terrorists? If that man was Muslim/Asian it would be "terror attack at high school"? 

Because these people are not terrorists - as I understand it, the term "terrorist" is related to motive, not number of people killed.

 

SenzuBean - on 01:25 Fri
In reply to mypyrex:

I think the best solution is to devolve gun control to the states. I really think the US as a whole has failed - there is no 'middle opinion' that suits the whole nation (one way of doing things that suits 330 million people?!). Let the states that want gun control to try it out. Let the states that want free gun access to have it. It's going to be messy, but ultimately I believe it'll be far less messier than whatever the heck the alternative of trying to maintain the status quo will be. It's interesting that this type of solution seems to work pretty well for alcohol (dry counties where you can't buy alcohol) - I don't see why it wouldn't work for guns too. It would mean that people would need to travel far away to buy guns, rather than have easy access.

Roadrunner5 - on 05:04 Fri
In reply to SenzuBean:

No, in NH that means no gun control..

The solution is multi-faceted.

Mental health, guns, Antidepressants, computer games, community awareness, background checks.

Everything has to improve. Right now we have the ridiculous situation where everyone points at the other and nothing changes. Every sector should seek to improve their role.

There is not one sector which does enough.

SenzuBean - on 05:54 Fri
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> No, in NH that means no gun control..

> The solution is multi-faceted.

> Mental health, guns, Antidepressants, computer games, community awareness, background checks.

> Everything has to improve. Right now we have the ridiculous situation where everyone points at the other and nothing changes. Every sector should seek to improve their role.

> There is not one sector which does enough.

Of course - I 100% agree. But that's the hard way, where people have to admit they're wrong, and I simply see that as never happening in the US. There hasn't been a single "hard" solution implemented in the US for anything, for ages (as far as I'm aware of - please correct me if I'm wrong). The "easy" (as in it's easier to agree on, harder to implement) is to decentralize laws so that people can have more control over their local area.

Post edited at 05:54
Dave Kerr - on 07:23 Fri
In reply to mypyrex:

America clearly feels that mass shootings are a price worth paying for what they see as freedom.

I'm sure many countries have things that other nations look at and say 'why do you put up with that?' It's just that mass shootings receive a bit more attention on the world stage than say an antiquated rail system.

Post edited at 07:33
Dave Kerr - on 07:40 Fri
In reply to Rampikino:

> The long-held claim that America is the leader of the free world is continually exposed as nothing more than bluff, bullying and money.

Yes, 'the land of the free' is in some ways enslaved by antiquated ideas*. I rather like Bertrand Russell's summary "America, where law and custom alike are based on the dreams of spinsters." Although I think he was referring mainly to attitudes to sex and marriage at the time he was there.

 

*We don't have the moral high ground in that regard either.

Post edited at 07:42
Philip on 08:12 Fri
In reply to mypyrex:

Is it a gun problem. Why, once a year does a student want to kill all their classmates?

If that was normal you'd have stabbings in developed countries where gun ownership is lower. You don't.

The poor gun control magnifies the tragedy but surely there is some underlying problem that people in the US just have far too much hate.

Post edited at 08:12
handofgod on 08:47 Fri
In reply to Philip:

 

You are hugely missing the point here.

Reason why, without a shred of doubt it is a gun related problem is;

Anyone in the USA can walk into a shop and purchase an automatic firearm. These weapons are the type the military use for maximum effect in worn zones.

Can you imagine the devastation these type of weapons can cause in say one minute compared to a knife?

Of course, knifes can be devastating too but nowhere near to the same level a gun. When was the last time you heard about a knife attack killing 17 people…?

And we do have lots of knife crime here in the UK. How many people died in separate knife attacks on NYE in London 2017? It’s just; the death count from knife attacks is always small.

100% gun problem.

 

 

 

neuromancer - on 09:07 Fri
In reply to handofgod:

Did you even read his post?

He said "The gun does not make the person want to kill people, it just makes the person kill more people".

To which you replied in a belittling tone "Don't be stupid, you're missing the point, it's 100% a gun problem because they can kill more people than a knife". I mean - you could have thought about it for one nanosecond and maybe posited "Guns make killing people less personal and easier to do psychologically" - which might be an interesting argument.  Instead you ignored him and treated him like a child.

To this I say: you are part of the problem.

This is why I always struggle with the gun control debate - much like other, emotionally motivated debates at the moment. In fact it's a microcosm of how we now manage politics - idpol is cancerous in every form, and is only likely to produce shoddy public policy.

Treating gun owners or supporters as if they are in support of killing children does literally nothing but virtue signal, make you feel good about yourself, build hatred and develop shitty reactionist policy. Gun owners also hate children dying.  They obivously think that there are important overriding justifications for ownership - like protection, hunting, personal rights e.t.c. and importantly, that it isn't gun ownership that drives these killings but poor social policy, mental health provisions e.t.c.

Post edited at 09:09
MG - on 09:23 Fri
In reply to neuromancer:

Sometimes you just have to say people are wrong - climate change deniers, brexit supporters, gun nuts being three examples.  Pretending these people are rational and just hold different opinions is simply being dishonest.

It's also obvious quite a few gun owners don't care less about people dying.  Otherwise there wouldn't be events like this every week.

Post edited at 09:24
The New NickB - on 09:29 Fri
In reply to Philip:

There are regularly knife incidents in schools, fatalities are rare, but I can give examples. The difference is a) it is probably psychologically and physically harder to stab someone with a knife than pull the trigger of an AR-15 b) it is easier to disarm someone with a knife.

wintertree - on 09:30 Fri
In reply to handofgod:

> Anyone in the USA can walk into a shop and purchase an automatic firearm

You do realise you are talking out of your arse here?  

balmybaldwin - on 09:40 Fri
In reply to Philip:

Instead of comparing to the number of knife attacks, maybe we should compare to the number of child suicides - most of these shootings do seem to be a form of "suicide by cop"

L anaeurope - on 09:43 Fri
In reply to mypyrex:

To be honest i am not surprised that this is hapening, it seems everyone has a gun in US and lots of frustrations. 

The sad thing is that innocent people pay with their lives for the permissive gun laws.

handofgod on 09:51 Fri
In reply to neuromancer:

> Did you even read his post?

> He said "The gun does not make the person want to kill people, it just makes the person kill more people".

"Don't be stupid

err did I say he was stupid?

> Treating gun owners or supporters as if they are in support of killing children does literally nothing but virtue signal, make you feel good about yourself, build hatred and develop shitty reactionist policy. Gun owners also hate children dying.  They obivously think that there are important overriding justifications for ownership - like protection, hunting, personal rights e.t.c. and importantly, that it isn't gun ownership that drives these killings but poor social policy, mental health provisions e.t.c.

Yes, of course easy access to firearms is only one part of the argument, and yes, one has to question the mental and physiological state of anyone carrying out such horrors but, you have to be pretty off the mark if you think more stringent gun control wouldnt curb the issue.

To me its such a black and white issue: stop the guns, you stop the mass shootings.

 

 

handofgod on 09:57 Fri
In reply to wintertree:

 

> > Anyone in the USA can walk into a shop and purchase an automatic firearm

> You do realise you are talking out of your arse here?  


Why?

DenzelLN - on 10:08 Fri
In reply to Robert Durran:

I think the word terror is self explanatory, to terrorise people by killing and injuring as many as possible, motive is irrelevant.

From Wiki - "It is the use of violence or threat of violence in the pursuit of political, religious, idealogical or social objectives"

Wether these things happen because Allah told him too, revenge on bullies at the school you attend or bad upbringing the result is the same. 

 

Post edited at 10:19
neuromancer - on 10:09 Fri
In reply to handofgod:

You literally cannot just "walk into any shop in the US and purchase an automatic firearm".

For one, fully automatic firearms are illegal in all but one or two states.

Secondly, the purchase of firearms of any kind requires a number of checks and permits in all but one or two states.

So he was right. You were actually just lying - for effect.

 

neuromancer - on 10:16 Fri
In reply to MG:

Again, you're not thinking about what you're saying.

Your opinions are based upon a wild mix of emotion and knowledge. Everyones are. Don't give yourself too much credit; you're only human. 

Let's turn it on its head. Lets say, for example, that I handed you a widely accepted, peer reviewed meta-study that proved that current climate change rates are in line with the norm and that human contributions had not had a statistically significant impact upon levels of warmth, co2 e.t.c. How would you feel? Would you continue in your cognitive dissonance? Get angry with me? Tell me it came from Russia Today? What if I showed you four more. No, ten more. What if I showed you your favourite pop tv science guy speaking clearly and without pressure and admitting this truth. Would you shout "Fake news"? Only for so long. Eventually you have to begin to reconsider. It's hard, but I have faith that even you aren't stupid or arrogant enough to reconsider your opinion. Remember: don't get angsty, just a thought experiment.

Now, I want you to imagine that a few weeks later, some guy in a pub comes up to you and says "You're just wrong mate. F*cking idiot. No point arguing with you. You're the reason baby polar bears are dying and if you don't change your opinion you support the continued murder of baby polar bears. Moreover, also, you probably support child prostitution. You know, I'm because most people who support child prostitution are a climate change-phobes."

Did you magically change your opinion back?

No?

So stop peddling idpol. All of you.

If you want change, address the arguments of the other side and treat them as human beings with good reasons for their ideas.

Post edited at 10:18
The New NickB - on 10:17 Fri
In reply to neuromancer:

You can however buy an AR-15, which appears to be the almost exclusive weapon of choice, technically a semi-automatic assault rifle, in 43 states.

MonkeyPuzzle - on 10:17 Fri
In reply to neuromancer:

> Gun owners also hate children dying.  

Agreed. They just love their guns more.

 

neuromancer - on 10:20 Fri
In reply to The New NickB:

I have the legal right to carry a fully automatic, gas operated, magazine fed light bullpup assault rifle - loaded, ready and openly in every single county of england, wales, scotland and northern ireland.

I haven't killed anyone yet, have I?

Or is it that univariate analysis is garbage? Do you even understand what that means?

wintertree - on 10:22 Fri
In reply to handofgod:

> Why?

I’m not going to “debate” with you.  Doing so makes your view appear debatworthy, giving it credance it doesn’t deserve.

Post edited at 10:24
DenzelLN - on 10:22 Fri
In reply to neuromancer:

Out of interest, i cant tell from the tone of your post wether you are serious about the climate change example you have used, id be keen to read about it if so.

MG - on 10:25 Fri
In reply to neuromancer:

I'm not really sure what you are saying - that presenting gun supporters with evidence that widespread gun ownership will change their minds?  Clearly it doesn't

Guns in the US is something the US needs to sort out, it's not for us to.  Meanwhile, I'm quite happy living in a  country with very low levels of gun ownership, crime and injuries

MG - on 10:28 Fri
In reply to neuromancer:

> I have the legal right to carry a fully automatic, gas operated, magazine fed light bullpup assault rifle - loaded, ready and openly in every single county of england, wales, scotland and northern ireland.

Really?  On what basis?

> I haven't killed anyone yet, have I?

I assume not, but the chances of you doing so accidentally or deliberately are much higher than someone who doesn't carry such a gun.

 

The New NickB - on 10:29 Fri
In reply to neuromancer:

I take your univariate analysis strawman and raise an n+1. 

I’m not analysing anything, I’m stating stating facts. It’s odd that your natural response appears to be attempts at insult.

neuromancer - on 10:29 Fri
In reply to MG:

I'm saying that I think you're more interested in feeling good about yourself through moral outrage, othering and dehumanising large swathes of a diverse and complex population and virtue signalling than you actually are interested in change to gun laws.

MonkeyPuzzle - on 10:30 Fri
In reply to neuromancer:

> ...virtue signalling... 

DING DING DING! We got one!

neuromancer - on 10:31 Fri
In reply to The New NickB:

I'm not sure I attempted anything, I was quite direct and open.

Starter for 10: Is context ever important?

MG - on 10:32 Fri
In reply to neuromancer:

> I'm saying that I think you're more interested in feeling good about yourself through moral outrage, othering and dehumanising large swathes of a diverse and complex population and virtue signalling than you actually are interested in change to gun laws.

OK. Not sure why you think that.  FWIW, I have US relatives who  variously own guns for hunting (take them seriously and use them carefully), and own guns as a sort of fetish, macho image thing (rather scary people, who are not going to be persuaded by gentle argument that guns are dangerous things).

Post edited at 10:33
MG - on 10:34 Fri
In reply to neuromancer:

>than you actually are interested in change to gun laws.

As above, I'm not.  I'm quite happy with our gun laws.

 

The New NickB - on 10:38 Fri
In reply to neuromancer:

> I'm not sure I attempted anything, I was quite direct and open.

Yes, you were being a dick. It’s my choice if I’m insulted.

> Starter for 10: Is context ever important?

Of course, make a contextual case for wisespread ownership of AR-15s and similar weapons and we can debate it.

handofgod on 10:39 Fri
In reply to wintertree:

> I’m not going to “debate” with you.  Doing so makes your view appear debatworthy, giving it credance it doesn’t deserve.

Odd. You come on to a forum. Make a statment then don't back it up.

Surley you have better things to do with your time.

I'm on a train. What is your excuse ?

 

Post edited at 10:39
wintertree - on 10:41 Fri
In reply to handofgod:

> Odd. You come on to a forum. Make a statment then don't back it up.

I don’t need to.  
MG - on 10:45 Fri
In reply to handofgod:

> Odd. You come on to a forum. Make a statment then don't back it up.

How about you back up your statement?  Face it, you were wrong.

Dax H - on 10:59 Fri
In reply to neuromancer:

> I have the legal right to carry a fully automatic, gas operated, magazine fed light bullpup assault rifle - loaded, ready and openly in every single county of england, wales, scotland and northern ireland.

> I haven't killed anyone yet, have I?

Do you not think there is a difference between you who I assume is involved in some Form of law enforcement or security and random members of the public owning firearms?

Not that I am anti firearm, I own shotguns but the only time they come out of the gun safe is to travel to a shoot and back. 

neuromancer - on 11:13 Fri
In reply to Dax H:

My apologies - you've missed my aim - I was using example to show that the previous poster who had stated "But you can buy an ar-15 in 43 states", was doing so wilfully absent of context.

 

In my context, you're right; I am and suspect I have more experience with firearms than anyone on the thread.  In his context, he had ignored background checks, types of weapons, ammunition natures, modifications, access to said weapons e.t.c. and so my argument was that unless you're willing to consider all of the aspects of a problem you are just adding to the noise and stupidity.

Post edited at 11:13
elsewhere on 11:15 Fri
In reply to neuromancer:

> I have the legal right to carry a fully automatic, gas operated, magazine fed light bullpup assault rifle - loaded, ready and openly in every single county of england, wales, scotland and northern ireland.

No you don't. You might have a licence though.

I bit worrying that somebody with such a licence doesn't understand the legal difference between a licence and a right yet complains about noise and stupidity. 

Post edited at 11:21
Moley on 11:20 Fri
In reply to mypyrex:

I shall add my 2 pennyworth to this debate which covers the same ground regularly, after every new atrocity.

I don't believe gun ownership itself is the problem or cause, it is a small percentage of people that own (or have access to) some guns. The problem is lack of comprehensive and robust checking of people who hold guns - as in being licenced.

In UK when I was licensing firearms for 12 years I worked throughout north Powys, at the time we had the highest percentage of licensed gun owners per capita in the UK. This did not result in Powys being the centre of firearm related crimes or deaths, occasional suicides usually, especially following foot and mouth. Obviously my area was very much a farming community and they accounted for much of the gun ownership.

I believe that without any robust checks or licensing system it is simply a percentage game regards mass killings in USA, they need to have the means to identify those 1 in 100,000 that are potential killers and ensure they do not have access to firearms. Which is pretty much what we attempt to do in this country, with reasonable success.

MG - on 11:27 Fri
In reply to Moley:

There is I think another more important aspect -the culture around guns.  Countries where gun ownership is  commonly seen as needed for defence of people or property have high levels of gun violence. Most of these countries are poor (and there may indeed be a need for defence).  The US is the exception.  Other countries with high gun ownership (e.g. Switzerland) don't have high level of gun violence because guns aren't seen in this way.  They do still have high levels of gun suicide.

Post edited at 11:27
neuromancer - on 11:31 Fri
In reply to elsewhere:

I think you may have overlooked a crucial possibility in your rush to discount me as a gun nut.

I'm not going to out myself; but suppose I were a specialist police firearms officer working for CO19?

neilh - on 11:31 Fri
In reply to Moley:

The gun control in the USA is directly opposite what we have here in the UK in respect of people's attitude to guns. Nobody here mentions the US Constitution and the right to bear arms. It is engrained in US culture and it is something we do not have here.

After Sandy Hook most US commentators felt that if gun control could not be introduced after the killing of young children, then gun control in the US was lost as an issue.

It will never happen. They had the one opportunity and blew it.The parallel is with Hungerford here which led to tighter controls.

Post edited at 11:32
MG - on 11:35 Fri
In reply to neuromancer:

> I'm not going to out myself; but suppose I were a specialist police firearms officer working for CO19?

Honestly, if that were the case I would be seriously concerned given your need to display your obsession with the minutiae of guns.

Rob Exile Ward on 11:36 Fri
In reply to neilh:

Posted by (I think) a friend of mine on facebook (he may have shared it of course):

 

"Hello, is that the Washington, DC police? I see that the the latest shooting is the fault of the people that didn't report a suspicious and dangerous character, rather than that of politicians who do absolutely nothing about gun control. So I thought I should report someone acting really weirdly. He's got a massive, but fragile ego, he's a compulsive liar and the stuff he puts on social media is truly disturbing. I'm really worried he's mentally disturbed and is going to do something really dangerous any time soon. The address? Yeah, it's 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. You can't miss him, he's orange. He'll be in an office eating a Big Mac and watching Fox News"

The New NickB - on 11:37 Fri
In reply to MG:

> Honestly, if that were the case I would be seriously concerned given your need to display your obsession with the minutiae of guns.

Agreed. I would also add that CO19 don’t use fully automatic weapons.

FactorXXX - on 11:45 Fri
In reply to neuromancer:

> I'm not going to out myself; but suppose I were a specialist police firearms officer working for CO19?

Or, an Army Barmy Infantry Officer with an attitude problem?
To be honest, if you're either, you're coming across as very unprofessional and I would hope the selection process for SCO19 in particular would weed out such individuals.

 

FactorXXX - on 11:46 Fri
In reply to The New NickB:

> Agreed. I would also add that CO19 don’t use fully automatic weapons.

and that CO19 no longer exists...

wintertree - on 11:50 Fri
In reply to neuromancer:

> I'm not going to out myself; but suppose I were a specialist police firearms officer working for CO19?

I for one would hope your patchy understanding of some issues (rights vs strictly controlled licences for example) is compensated by your ability - under pressure - to differentiate a Wookie from a Honey Monster...

Post edited at 11:51
neilh - on 11:51 Fri
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Trump is irrelevant. If Obama could not do anything then they have well and truly missed the boat.Obama was powerless on the issue.

Dave Garnett - on 11:58 Fri
In reply to Moley:

> In UK when I was licensing firearms for 12 years I worked throughout north Powys, at the time we had the highest percentage of licensed gun owners per capita in the UK. This did not result in Powys being the centre of firearm related crimes or deaths, occasional suicides usually, especially following foot and mouth. Obviously my area was very much a farming community and they accounted for much of the gun ownership.

Well, exactly.  I can see that most of the gun-owners in Powys have a legitimate agricultural reason for owning a firearm.  The problem is that most of the gun-owners in suburban America only believe they do. 

 

Robert Durran - on 12:19 Fri
In reply to DenzelLN:

> From Wiki - "It is the use of violence or threat of violence in the pursuit of political, religious, idealogical or social objectives"

Yes, precisely, so a disgruntled teenager randomly shooting kids is not a terrorist.

> Wether these things happen because Allah told him too, revenge on bullies at the school you attend or bad upbringing the result is the same. 

Yes, of course, in that lots of people get killed.

 

The New NickB - on 12:25 Fri
In reply to Robert Durran:

However, a disgruntled teenager at a pop concert with a bomb in his bag is. There was some suggestion that Nikalas Cruz had links to white supremicist organisations.

elsewhere on 12:27 Fri
In reply to neuromancer:

> I think you may have overlooked a crucial possibility in your rush to discount me as a gun nut.

> I'm not going to out myself; but suppose I were a specialist police firearms officer working for CO19?

A specialist police officer would understand the difference between a right and a licence so you can't be that.

If I exert my right to walk down my local high street at noon every day for a week nobody would notice and my right would almost certainly be unchallenged.

If a specialist firearms officer claimed that outside of their assigned duty they had the "right to carry a fully automatic, gas operated, magazine fed light bullpup assault rifle - loaded, ready and openly" every day on the high street for a week they would noticed and they would quickly no longer be a firearms officer. 

That's because they have a licence to carry a gun on duty and but not a right.

Ridge - on 12:31 Fri
In reply to FactorXXX:

> and that CO19 no longer exists...

...and I don't recall them ever being issued with bull-pups, (or even 'fully automatic, gas operated, magazine fed light bullpups').

Out of interest, where can I get a blowback operated, belt-fed heavy bullpup? That'd be fun to try and use.

neuromancer - on 13:28 Fri
In reply to elsewhere:

You can continue to argue minutae if you'd like.  Twice, I have brought up thought experiments to assist with the explanation of ideas that I found simple, but other people struggled with. Both times I have been taken literally.

I don't know how to explain it in any clearer language.

I AM USING ANALOGY TO EXPLAIN SIMPLE THINGS.

Maybe capitals is helpful? Who knows. I was under the impression that this is a common method of discussion, to explore ideas. I don't actually know if the human impact on climate change is statistically significant. Nor do I plan to carry automatic weapons and run around the countryside frightening young children.

However - the speed at which, instead of responding to my argument (that othering, attacking the man and virtue signalling were unhelpful tools in discussing complex political arguments like should people own weapons) - I was othered, my statements taken out of context (which is funny, as the statements were about people taking things out of context) and painted as a caricature is about as indicative as anything can be.

I genuinely think that if I had prefaced the arguments with "Before I start - I am pro gun control" - I would have been put into a different box and responded to completely differently. Oh well, this is the result of subscribing to group identity politics. You're either in or you're out. No space for graduations of human experience. Or real discussion.

I even threw you all a huge bone with the "But what about the varying psychological complexities of knife vs gun crime". I have no particular interest in gun ownership.  I have an interest in how people talk to eachother.

Post edited at 13:34
MG - on 13:33 Fri
In reply to neuromancer:

The reason people are taking the piss isn't because of your (rather convoluted) analogies. It's because of your repeated attempts to come over as some sort macho hard-man know it all.  Claiming you are allowed to walk around with big-tit, mother-f*cker, kill-o-matic machine gun doesn't make you look authoritative.  Just a bit of idiot.

neuromancer - on 13:36 Fri
In reply to MG:

I'm going to assume you're trolling unless you actually read my post.

Thenewnickb stated something 'as a fact', and pretended that context was unimportant.

So I replied, stating something else, pretending that context was unimportant.

Then I concluded that both were equally rubbish - as "univariate analysis is stupid".

Your assumption is that it's all about me. Because it's easier to just write someone off than it is to argue ideas. Attacking the person rather than the idea is what kids do.

SO!

Why is it a good idea to marginalise and demonise gun owners? Does this get you what you want? Does this change public policy? Should the anti-gun lobby engage with the NRA or just call them all hicks? Are you getting this yet?

Post edited at 13:39
MG - on 13:43 Fri
In reply to neuromancer:

> Because it's easier to just write someone off than it is to argue ideas. Attacking the person rather than the idea is what kids do.

You haven't actually presented any ideas beyond "Look at me, I know lots of gun-nut bullshit words and fantasize about walking round with machine guns".

> Why is it a good idea to marginalise and demonise gun owners? Does this get you what you want? Does this change public policy? 

Yep - as above, quite happy with gun laws post Hungerford and Dunblane.  The UK is very safe, gun-wise.

 

DubyaJamesDubya - on 13:44 Fri
In reply to Ciro:

> Yeah, the idea of the citizens of the US using assault rifles to defeat a government that's armed with the world's most expensive military, and reaper drones, seems like the most depressingly ludicrous fantasy of the lot

Except the NRA would use that as justification to allow the sale of tanks and drones to the public.

neuromancer - on 13:45 Fri
In reply to MG:

I'm confused.

I know that's not true because you replied to my first post, in which I presented an argument for a better way of approaching the gun control debate.

DubyaJamesDubya - on 13:50 Fri
In reply to Stichtplate:

> > I think we can start now limiting cartridge sizes, buy back programs, reeducation, mental health programs, licensing issues. It will take time but I don't think its a unwinnable battle. There will always be gun deaths but they can be much less.

> A .22 long is a lethal cartridge, how small do you want to go and how successful do you think effectively outlawing hunting in the US is going to be?

> Mental health programmes and re-education: you work in the American eduction system? how's your funding at the moment and would you expect the vast additional sums required to become available anytime soon?

> Licensing is a more viable route to tackle gun control, but the huge numbers of unlicensed guns already in circulation would hamper its effectiveness .

> 300,000,000 in US circulation and if the scheme reduced that number appreciably, the blackmarket value would go through the roof. A Sisyphean task.

> Someone else suggested increasing the cost of ammunition to $1000 a round. Making a bullet is relatively straightforward, costs pence and requires a couple of hundred quid in equipment (if that). Thousands of UK shooters produce their own ammo. Any huge price hike would just produce a correspondingly huge cottage industry to supply the black market.

> I really wish there was a simple answer to all this, but there just isn't.

A .22 hunting rifle is lethal but nowhere near as efficient a tool for mass murder as a semi automatic assault rifle. Making weapons like this illegal would clearly help.

MG - on 13:52 Fri
In reply to neuromancer:

You didn't.  You just pointed out that US gun owners  think owning guns is higher priority than preventing children being regularly massacred

neuromancer - on 13:55 Fri
In reply to MG:

Again, a lie. Stop trolling.

MG - on 13:56 Fri
In reply to neuromancer:

Are we talking about your 9.07 post?  I don't see an argument there.

DubyaJamesDubya - on 14:14 Fri
In reply to MG:

> Sometimes you just have to say people are wrong - climate change deniers, brexit supporters, gun nuts being three examples.  Pretending these people are rational and just hold different opinions is simply being dishonest.

 

And people who use the term 'virtue signal'

Ciro - on 14:14 Fri
In reply to Philip:

Once a year? 18 times so far this year, and it's only the middle of February

The New NickB - on 14:27 Fri
In reply to neuromancer:

The thing is, let’s call it context, my comment about AR-15s being for sale in 43 States was in response to a comment about only a few states where it is legal to sell fully automatic weapons. The AR-15 isn’t fully automatic, although that line can be a little blurred, but it is widely available, with some variables in controls state to state and it is an extremely effective killing machine, and it definately the favoured weapon of mass target killers. So, really your call for contextualisation looks a bit like whataboutery to me.

Perhaps if you had tried to engage in debate and act like an adult and not come across as a childish fantasist with a gun fetish. I see you haven’t responded to my suggestion that you propose a contextualised argument for the widespread ownership of semi-automatic assault weapons. Let’s assume we are not dealing with the Swiss militia system.

Post edited at 14:37
Jimbocz - on 14:34 Fri
In reply to neuromancer:

> I think you may have overlooked a crucial possibility in your rush to discount me as a gun nut.

> I'm not going to out myself; but suppose I were a specialist police firearms officer working for CO19?

Who also wrote that analogy about global warming above that barely made sense?  Gulp!

handofgod on 14:37 Fri
In reply to The New NickB:

Mr Neuromancer, you Certainly have ruffled a few feathers today ;-)

 

SteveSBlake - on 15:22 Fri
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I don't think it is possible to fix. In 2009 it was estimated there were 300 million guns in circulation....... Many of those will be owned by nutters who would fight (by 'force of Arms') any change to what they see as their right to bear arms. It would be a near civil war and unmanageable. 

They are sadly stuck in the mess - I don't think there is a way out...

 

TobyA on 16:33 Fri
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Yes, precisely, so a disgruntled teenager randomly shooting kids is not a terrorist.

What about if the disgruntled teenager had recently converted to Islam and had been watching ISIS vids? 

These things are far from clear cut either/or that you are hoping for.

Incidentally lots of reporting that the Parkland FL shooter had joined a far right group and done paramilitary training with them.

Edit: NickB made these points above - apologies Nick, I replied to Robert without reading down.

Post edited at 16:38
Robert Durran - on 16:47 Fri
In reply to TobyA:

> What about if the disgruntled teenager had recently converted to Islam and had been watching ISIS vids? 

> These things are far from clear cut either/or that you are hoping for.

Fair enough, but I was just arguing the general point that it is possible to massacre lots of people without actually being a terrorist. So if he was simply disgruntled because he had been expelled from the school  and had no wider political or social agenda then he would not be a terrorist. I agree that if he had links to white supremacist organisations or was an ISIS supporter then it does become less clear cut.

Roadrunner5 - on 17:05 Fri
In reply to SenzuBean:

The latest federal rules allow reciprocal rights.. so if i have the right to open carry in my state I have the rights In other states.. trumping local rules..

profitofdoom on 17:49 Fri
In reply to mypyrex:

They said on the news that the alleged Florida school shooter is now "sad" and "remorseful". Well that is nice to know, is it not, good for him. Words fail me

elsewhere on 18:02 Fri
In reply to neuromancer:

> I have the legal right to carry a fully automatic, gas operated, magazine fed light bullpup assault rifle - loaded, ready and openly in every single county of england, wales, scotland and northern ireland.

Is this an analogy and if so what for?

DenzelLN - on 18:03 Fri
In reply to Robert Durran:

Im going to politely disagree.

 

Post edited at 18:12
FactorXXX - on 18:06 Fri
In reply to DenzelLN:

> Erm, yes he is......."idealogical or social objectives" there will have been something that influenced his behaviour, he decided to do what he did based on XYZ. 

That means that virtually all murders are acts of terrorism then!

DenzelLN - on 18:14 Fri
In reply to FactorXXX:

Sorry just edited my post.

So, if he killed all those people with a bomb, what would he be then?

Im trying to understand the definition....could you say that terrorism is politically motivated? There are varied definitions online

Post edited at 18:21
TobyA on 18:35 Fri
In reply to Robert Durran:

When as we have seen in some recent cases perpetrators self-radicalising in a matter of months, even weeks, (both Jihadi and far-right), I don't think it possible to really separate "terrorist", "mentally disturbed" or "disgruntled teenager". There are lots of attacks round the world that have happened that could probably be all three.

FactorXXX - on 19:25 Fri
In reply to DenzelLN:

> Sorry just edited my post.

No problem, it happens...  

> So, if he killed all those people with a bomb, what would he be then?

The method doesn't matter, the method doesn't even have to kill or injure as long as there's some sort of threat.  

> Im trying to understand the definition....could you say that terrorism is politically motivated? There are varied definitions online.

This is the UK's one:

The United Kingdom's Terrorism Act 2000 defined terrorism as follows:

(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:

(a) the action falls within subsection (2), (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.  


That's pretty good by my reckoning, but how you interpret individual acts of violence is another matter and I'm sure that one mans terrorist is another mans inadequate loser, etc.    

Post edited at 19:35
Roadrunner5 - on 20:03 Fri

Just found a student with his hunting crossbow on campus.. weapons are just everywhere here.

it was locked up but he has an AR15 and it was quite an argument that his weapons do not come on campus

 

Stichtplate on 20:03 Fri
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

> A .22 hunting rifle is lethal but nowhere near as efficient a tool for mass murder as a semi automatic assault rifle. Making weapons like this illegal would clearly help.

No argument from me. Most rational people don't want the public to have access to weapons designed specifically to kill other people.

Stichtplate on 20:10 Fri
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> Just found a student with his hunting crossbow on campus.. weapons are just everywhere here.

> it was locked up but he has an AR15 and it was quite an argument that his weapons do not come on campus

That is just horrendous. The fact that it doesn't surprise me just illustrates my initial point that the problem has become insurmountable. America, as a nation, is essentially insane on the issue of gun ownership.

Eric9Points - on 20:11 Fri
DenzelLN - on 20:13 Fri
In reply to FactorXXX:

Cheers, thanks for that

mypyrex - on 20:28 Fri
In reply to Stichtplate:

 

>  America, as a nation, is essentially insane.

Sorted that for you ;o|

Robert Durran - on 21:35 Fri
In reply to TobyA:

> When as we have seen in some recent cases perpetrators self-radicalising in a matter of months, even weeks, (both Jihadi and far-right), I don't think it possible to really separate "terrorist", "mentally disturbed" or "disgruntled teenager". There are lots of attacks round the world that have happened that could probably be all three.


I agree, but I think it is perfectly possible, in principle, to imagine an attack which gunned down lots of people that wouldn't be an act of terrorism.

jim jones on 21:44 Fri
In reply to Rampikino:

> The long-held claim that America is the leader of the free world is continually exposed as nothing more than bluff, bullying and money.

> No leader of the free world would allow this to go on. But then, the "most powerful man on earth" (another myth), was bankrolled by the NRA to the tune of no less than $31mm in his presidential campaign...

Disturbing that someone should dislike this!

Post edited at 22:00
FactorXXX - on 22:17 Fri
In reply to TobyA:

> When as we have seen in some recent cases perpetrators self-radicalising in a matter of months, even weeks, (both Jihadi and far-right), I don't think it possible to really separate "terrorist", "mentally disturbed" or "disgruntled teenager". There are lots of attacks round the world that have happened that could probably be all three.

One factor that is different, is that there is already an existing movement for the potential Jihadist to attach themselves to and follow.  Not only that, but that movement fully sanctions extreme violence and sells the idea that suicide whilst conducting those acts is not only justified but honourable according to their religion.  I don't think there is really that equivalent in any far-right movement that might be said to be advocating such extreme measures in retaliation to Jihadism, or for any other cause they might be interested in furthering.  In the example of this latest school shooting, it's entirely possible that the shooter was affiliated with far-right groups, but I can't see those same groups suggesting their members go into schools and kill random people - especially as there doesn't seem to be any racial/religious motivation, etc.
You're probably right that a lot of the Jihadist attacks have been conducted by people with mental health issues and/or disgruntled teenagers, etc. and unfortunately, there are people only too willing to take advantage of them.
As for the latest incident being classed as Terrorism?  Unless his motivation goes beyond taking out an extreme grudge against the school he was expelled at, then no, I personally wouldn't say it was Terrorism.  If it transpires that the attack was co-ordinated and for a motive outside of a personal one, then yes, it would be Terrorism.

baron - on 22:21 Fri
In reply to jim jones:

Possibly because trying to lay the blame on Trump isn't helpful

Rampikino - on 23:27 Fri
In reply to baron:

> Possibly because trying to lay the blame on Trump isn't helpful

What a gross misrepresentation of my post.

Trump is just one of a long line of people who are to blame - on this occasion for deflecting the debate towards mental health.

His deflecting approach is compounded by the $31mm bankroll from the NRA.

Pete Pozman - on 23:39 Fri
In reply to Philip:

> Is it a gun problem. Why, once a year does a student want to kill all their classmates?

> If that was normal you'd have stabbings in developed countries where gun ownership is lower. You don't.

> The poor gun control magnifies the tragedy but surely there is some underlying problem that people in the US just have far too much hate.

Very powerful guns are the problem. Thomas Mair had a gun but it was a homemade one constructed from instructions in a right wing magazine. If he'd been able to walk into B&Q and buy an assault rifle do you think he would have been messing around with a hacksaw. Imagine the trauma if he had not only murdered Jo Cox but half of Birstall village square  as well. How do the Americans tolerate it ? 

baron - on 23:48 Fri
In reply to Rampikino:

So you weren't having a dig at Trump?

Or were you?

Because you failed to mention any other president by name.

Rampikino - on 23:56 Fri
In reply to Pete Pozman:

I get the sense that many "ordinary" Americans have simply had enough.

Through foreign travel I have a number of American friends.  One has been posting extensively over the last few days as it turns out a babysitter to his girlfriend's grandchildren and two kids of neighbours were murdered in this latest shooting.

A flavour of some of the posts from Americans on the thread:

"I love it when politicians say they are making the "American people safe".  Safe where, not at schools, not at colleges, not at churches, not at night clubs, not at concerts, where exactly are we safe?"

"The spineless politicians who kneel to the NRA are accomplices to this horror!"

"I'm so sorry for the loss of their babysitter. This effects so many lives. I watched the news conference with the police and I think she was the mayor or governor. They keep blaming mental illness. This angers me so much..you know why it hits home to me. This is pure and simple evil. Not all mentally ill people mass kill children. Evil psychotic people do. I couldn't bring myself to watch Trump."

"Just heard the speech from President Dumbo.....Said really nothing  about any controls  but  just sympathy....."

I get a sense of helplessness and frustration.

Rampikino - on 00:00 Sat
In reply to baron:

> So you weren't having a dig at Trump?

> Or were you?

> Because you failed to mention any other president by name.

If course I was.  But not blaming him for the shooting as you claimed.

He's to blame for deflecting while accepting NRA money.  He's the one currently who could do something but won't. That was the crux of my post - THE PERSON WHO COULD DO SOMETHING WILL NOT.

 

baron - on 00:58 Sat
In reply to Rampikino:

Trump is as helpless as every president who has come before him.

Even suggesting that he can do something just ignores the reality of the situation.

After all who wouldn't want to be the president who sorted out the gun problem? That'd be worth far more than any NRA funding.

Even Obama knew the futility of the situation.

This doesn't excuse Trump's attempt at deflection.

FactorXXX - on 02:29 Sat
In reply to Rampikino:

> No leader of the free world would allow this to go on. But then, the "most powerful man on earth" (another myth), was bankrolled by the NRA to the tune of no less than $31mm in his presidential campaign...

Trump's political campaign receiving money from the NRA has got nothing to do with the horrific slaughter that seems to be a daily part of life in the USA. No other President has managed to control it and I can't see any future ones controlling it unless they pull a miracle and get both Republicans and Democrats to agree to radical gun control. The only way anything will happen is if the ordinary person demands it.  Now it appears from UK media reporting of the typical response to these events is that all US citizens want firmer gun control.  However, I'm a bit sceptical about that reporting - if that was the case, wouldn't the likes of Trump respond accordingly to garner votes? 
My best guess unfortunately, is that the average American agrees with the current gun laws and in particular, they see the Second Amendment as being sacrosanct.

 

Post edited at 02:45
Pete Pozman - on 07:52 Sat
In reply to neuromancer:

> I have the legal right to carry a fully automatic, gas operated, magazine fed light bullpup assault rifle - loaded, ready and openly in every single county of england, wales, scotland and northern ireland.

 

Fancy meeting up for a pint sometime? 

 

MG - on 08:27 Sat
In reply to baron:

> After all who wouldn't want to be the president who sorted out the gun problem? 

Trump for example, and all other republicans pretty much. They dont think there is a gun problem.

wbo - on 09:02 Sat
In reply to MG/Baron/FactorXXX - they don't want to admit there's  a gun problem as looking liberal will pizz off their base.  A significant proportion support  limited control of assault rifles and more but needing to keep the base and donors inc. the NRA means it's dead in the water - ergo 'mental health'.  

Baron - after Sandy Hook Obama tried to introduce legislation but Mitch McConnell et al shut it down as the republican agenda was to kill any of Obama legislation no matter the subject.  Right now there is a Republican president , senate and house so if they want to do something they can.  But they obviously dont care enough.  Hopefully with a majority population that wants some from of control this will came back to bite them

 

baron - on 09:30 Sat
In reply to wbo:

But even if the president wants to introduce tougher gun controls there's the problem of the constitution.

Trying to change it plays into the hands of many people, gun owners or not, who see the federal state as a threat th their individual states and themselves.

MonkeyPuzzle - on 10:05 Sat
In reply to baron:

If only there was a way to amend the constitution.

baron - on 10:20 Sat
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Some parts are easier to amend than others.

Which isn't really the issue because making guns illegal simply leaves 300 million weapons lying around.

Unless you imagine a long line of gun owners waiting to hand in their guns.

 

MG - on 10:29 Sat
In reply to baron:

> Some parts are easier to amend than others.

> Which isn't really the issue because making guns illegal simply leaves 300 million weapons lying around.

> Unless you imagine a long line of gun owners waiting to hand in their guns.

That's exactly what happened in Australia in 1996.  The government compensated owners for the 650000 guns handed.  Likewise in the UK after Dunblane.  The problem in the US isn't the legal or practical but the desire to actually change things among the population.

marsbar - on 10:40 Sat
Stuart en Écosse - on 10:42 Sat
In reply to MG:

It seems timely to link to the best articulated monologue anyone has ever delivered on the subject.

Alert: contains swearing but anyone with the stomach for regular mass murders of children should be able to cope. https://www.vimeo.com/219338338

Post edited at 10:55
baron - on 11:04 Sat
In reply to MG:

I only know a few ex gun owners in the UK.

None of them wanted to hand in their handguns but, as you said, the will of the people was for a ban and being vastly outnumbered and not prone to violence they had little choice but to comply.

You are 100% correct in that until the people of the US want a ban it just won't happen.

captain paranoia - on 11:57 Sat
In reply to neuromancer:

> but suppose I were a specialist police firearms officer working for CO19?

Then you would have a licence to carry a weapon whilst on duty, under strictly controlled circumstances, using a weapon issued to you.

That licence, and weapon could be revoked at any time.

You do not have a legal right to own or carry an automatic assault weapon around the streets of Britain just because you feel like it. Licences and rights are very different.

I'm sure that if you are a member of an ARU, or a member of HM Forces  these things will have been explained to you very clearly.

Ridge - on 16:13 Sat
In reply to MG:

There was extremely limited handgun and large calibre semi-automatic rifle ownership in the UK pre-Hungerford and pre-Dunblane; and rocking up at a rifle range with the fabled 'gas-operated, magazine fed light bullshit semi- auto' painted in Dulux green and brown would probably have you pegged as a nutcase to be avoided. With the fairly strict accountancy on guns and ammunition it was fairly simple to say "Hand it in or you're nicked, and no, you're not getting any compensation".

Australia seemed a bigger job, but again there was a licensing and logging system so again there would have been a very good idea of who owned what.

The US? I suspect no one has a clue what's legally owned by who, let alone what's in the hands of criminals and nutcases. You'd maybe get law abiding citizens in urban areas with a reasonable amount of policing handing in weapons. Out in Shitsville, Arkansas where every Billy-Bob and Cleetus is off his head on meth and the nearest obese deputy is a couple of hours away? I wouldn't be nipping to the woodshed without a 9mm, gun control or not.

Roadrunner5 - on 17:27 Sat
In reply to Ridge:

There's going to be no magic bullet and it'll never be as safe as places like the UK but that's no reason to not bring in sensible regulations, improved mental health, removing guns from those on terror watch lists and the like.

But Trump is putting it all on mental health whilst simultaneously cutting mental health funding.. it takes a special kind of stupid to think anything good about that man.

captain paranoia - on 17:42 Sat
In reply to Roadrunner5:

You'd think he'd he quite keen on mental health funding...

Trangia on 18:10 Sat
In reply to mypyrex:

Good article in today's i paper by Janet Street-Porter. After Trump had offered "prayers and condolences" one Parkland student responded " I don't want your condolences you f*cking piece of shit. My friends and teachers were shot..do something instead of sending prayers. Prayers won't fix this, but gun control will prevent it happening again"

The message has been shared by thousands, but as JSP writes it will be totally ineffective......

JSP says that Trump lacks the emotional intelligence of Obama. Trump doesn't do suffering. He doesn't cry, doesn't do public displays of emotion. 

So his answer is prayer...........

Post edited at 18:18
jim jones on 18:24 Sat
In reply to baron:

> Possibly because trying to lay the blame on Trump isn't helpful

Isn't he the one who could actually do something or does the NRA run the country? 

wbo - on 18:28 Sat
In reply to baron: Sorry for delay - been climbing no that's a non issue (2nd amendment).  The second amendment doesn't mean you can own any gun any time.   Look at the band on fully automatic weapons, varying state level laws on concealed carry and so on.  

Polling indicates a very large majority want some fun control, and a pretty large majority want it a lot stricter than now.  It's down to party politics

There's certainly a lot of guns floating around, but if you don't start you don't finish

 

FactorXXX - on 18:40 Sat
In reply to Trangia:

> Good article in today's i paper by Janet Street-Porter. After Trump had offered "prayers and condolences" one Parkland student responded " I don't want your condolences you f*cking piece of shit. My friends and teachers were shot..do something instead of sending prayers. Prayers won't fix this, but gun control will prevent it happening again"
> The message has been shared by thousands, but as JSP writes it will be totally ineffective......
> JSP says that Trump lacks the emotional intelligence of Obama. Trump doesn't do suffering. He doesn't cry, doesn't do public displays of emotion. 
> So his answer is prayer...........

All very commendable.
However, isn't there perhaps a case that people are using this as an excuse to demonstrate their anti-Trump views, as opposed to perhaps suggesting realistic solutions to ending these shootings? 

 

Trangia on 18:46 Sat
In reply to FactorXXX:

> All very commendable.

> However, isn't there perhaps a case that people are using this as an excuse to demonstrate their anti-Trump views, as opposed to perhaps suggesting realistic solutions to ending these shootings? 

I would feel the same if my friends had been shot in that sick society that doesn't attempt to control guns and my President offered me his "prayers".

toad - on 18:52 Sat
In reply to mypyrexs listening to something on the radio today about Compton/LA and how they’ve improved on the gang culture of the 90s. Not perfect, but a lot better than it was, and one of the tools they used was some sort of gun amnesty/ hand in. Didn’t get the details as I was driving, but it looks like there was a limited example of gun control with positive results

 

Post edited at 18:59
baron - on 19:06 Sat
In reply to wbo:

What!

You've actually been out climbing instead of engaging with me on the internet!

Hope you had a good time.  

Pete Pozman - on 20:57 Sat
In reply to Trangia:

> I would feel the same if my friends had been shot in that sick society that doesn't attempt to control guns and my President offered me his "prayers".

Especially when there's absolutely not the slightest indication that he actually believes in God. 

Robert Durran - on 21:34 Sat
In reply to wbo:

> Polling indicates a very large majority want some fun control, and a pretty large majority want it a lot stricter than now.

Spoilsports.

toad - on 23:20 Sat
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> Especially when there's absolutely not the slightest indication that he actually believes in God. 

Thought he was all about the prosperity gospel ( rough translation god loves the rich and the more he loves you the richer you get and the richer you are the more he loves you)

FactorXXX - on 03:26 Sun
In reply to Trangia:

> I would feel the same if my friends had been shot in that sick society that doesn't attempt to control guns and my President offered me his "prayers".

If my friends had been killed in such circumstances, I would very much doubt that my first port of recall would be social media.  Hey ho, modern world and all that...

No President, including Obama, has really done anything to control guns and all Presidents are apt to use empty words of consolation in such circumstances - it's after all what politicians do.
I'll stand by what I say, there are people who are only too willing to use circumstances like this to demonise Trump and in so doing so are missing a vital point - If you *really* want to change the attitude to gun ownership in the USA, then you *really* have to change the attitude of people in the USA.  Blaming Trump is a total blind alley - All the USA is essentially complicit in the current situation by their acceptance that the Constitution must be withheld.   
In essence, don't attack Trump, but instead attack the laws that allow such free and easy access to the sort of firearms that seem to be used in these shootings.

Eric9Points - on 07:57 Sun
In reply to FactorXXX:

No, that's not true.

 

You don't, for example, remember the democrats in the house of representatives holding a sit in on the floor of the house over the refusal of the republicans to do anything after the Sandyhook massacre?

 

You don't recall the the republicans, who have held majorities in both houses for about six years, refused to legislate against bump stocks after the Las Vegas massacre even though the device was clearly intended to circumvent legislation against fully automatic weapons? Read the link I posted a day or two ago and then read around a bit more. Many people in US do want something done but vested interests and a vocal minority on the republican side of politics are holding that party hostage.

 

You might also want to read up about strict controls introduced by the democratic administration in Connecticut after Sandyhook which has reduced gun related deaths by 25% to get an idea of the politics behind this lack of action by federal government.

Post edited at 07:58
Pete Pozman - on 08:02 Sun
In reply to toad:

> Thought he was all about the prosperity gospel ( rough translation god loves the rich and the more he loves you the richer you get and the richer you are the more he loves you)

Can you believe that Trump subscribes to any kind of  theology, even the massive confidence trickster scam version you cite? 

 

 

 

Post edited at 08:08

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.