|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Fucking Guns
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Right. Twenty little children were shot to gobbets at Sandyhook. Utterly unrecognizable. Little bodies like theirs explode. Disintegrate. It rains eyeballs. Their parents could not ID them. Closed casket. If someone wants to put up an advert in Times square thanking Bushmaster and Glock and their pictures before and after, I'd pay $1000 towards it.
Every time this happens we must FLOOD the media with the pictures and say nothing. Demand nothing.
Until that happens NOTHING will happen. Nothing AT ALL. But more mindless mass murders. In America. The world's moral cop.
God bless America.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But still an accident.
I get to use it again. Fucking hell, what is wrong with you people?
It's not an 'accident'. An accident is where something normal happens and there are unintended consequences. Here, a grown man was letting children play with loaded guns. Why don't you have a wild guess at what's wrong with that scenario, and why it doesn't qualify as an 'accident'?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Maybe to get the pro-lifers interested, what the USA really need is a bunch of mass shootings of pregnant women in the stomach.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
An accident is where something normal happens and there are unintended consequences.
No, an accident is when something you don't intend to happen happens.
quote:
Here, a grown man was letting children play with loaded guns. Why don't you have a wild guess at what's wrong with that scenario, and why it doesn't qualify as an 'accident'?
There's a whole lot wrong with the situation as reported, there's clearly gross negligence on the part of the adult, and were I the prosecutor, I'd be filing charges. I'd think you could make a good case for criminally negligent homicide.
There are perfectly safe ways of shooting with children. This situation failed on just about every count.
Accidents don't preclude criminal negligence on someone else's part. There are any number of accidents at work that happen because an employer doesn't have adequate procedures for ensuring safety, for example. Often, the lack of safety procedures rises to the criminally negligent level. But it's still an accident, even though some third party goes to jail for allowing it to happen.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
God forbid, but it WILL happen. It will be WORTH IT if the images fill every billboard. Convoys had to be sacrificed to crack the Nazi naval codes. And AFTER. Every church should put up a giant cross shaped poster of mass shooting little child victims, sparing nothing, with crossed firearms at its foot.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
There are perfectly safe ways of shooting with children.
Fucking hell, what is wrong with you people?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Fucking hell, what is wrong with you people?
There are perfectly safe ways of shooting guns with children. This is what is called a "fact". It is quite possible to have children go target shooting, say, without running even the slightest risk of anybody accidentally shooting anyone else.
Equally, there are perfectly safe ways of using some power tools with children (not everything - I'm not going to hand a child a circular saw any time soon, just like handing a child an Uzi set to full auto is always a bad idea.) It's also quite easy for a child to badly injure himself with those same power tools if you are not providing adequate supervision.
You might well not consider it desirable for children to fire guns. That's fine - but that doesn't alter the fact that children can fire guns safely, if you provide the right circumstances.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... the kilt has been elevated to a mythical status with invented associations of some tartans with particular clans, festivals for pipes, Highland dancing and folk music, we've even taken a type of sausage and given it a mythic status ...
I'm quite willing to accept that there are groups within the US who feel culturally threatened, and seek something emblematic to hold onto to maintain a cultural presence.
True, but carrying a lethal weapon as an "emblem" of one's culture is a bit more extreme than wearing a kilt or reciting poetry over a plate of haggis and clapshot.
I never said it was a good emblem to pick, in fact I'd say it's a fucking stupid one. I also suspect that a lot of the people who are wandering around openly carrying guns, or in other ways making guns an issue to the extent of preventing more rapid progress towards a safer society, probably haven't considered the real reasons why they holding so tight to the their 'right' to own guns - and if they started to think about where this part of their culture has come from and why they feel the need to defend it so much they might realise that as an emblem of who they are it probably has an emphasis and impact they don't really like. ie: even those who carry guns openly will probably agree that as an emblem of their culture it's a stupid and dangerous thing to wave around.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Can I just add that I think holding an eleven year old criminally responsible is wrong, and its wrong when we do it in the UK too.
I don't agree.
I don't think the American practice of trying a child as an adult when he's accused of a particularly serious crime can ever be justified - the child is still a child, and should be treated as such, whatever he's done, but I don't agree that 11 year olds should be free from criminal sanction.
Children don't suddenly wake up one day and turn into responsible functional adults - it's a gradual transition. It makes sense that the criminal justice system makes the transition with them.
Eleven-year-olds know right from wrong. I have one, and so know many, and whilst they're pretty good at being completely oblivious to things like personal safety and chains of consequence, they're pretty clear about what they are supposed to do and what they are not supposed to do.
Because eleven-year-olds are still children, and still fairly young children at that - dealing with them should look different from dealing with 14-year-olds, which should look different from dealing with 17-year-olds. But I don't think that a get-out-of-jail-free card is the right approach.
(In this particular case, I don't believe any crime has been committed by the 11-year-old. I think the "responsible" adult is guilty of quite a lot.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Fucking hell, what is wrong with you people?
Those are almost exactly the same words that the (American) friend of an (American) FB friend used after the second friend posted a link to this.
Apart from the comments by Dr Carson (shouldn't he be struck off?) deserving an airing in Hell, the main point of that is that I have a few American FB friends who are speaking up on gun issues.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Fucking hell, what is wrong with you people?
There are perfectly safe ways of shooting guns with children.
Then why don't you make those safe ways mandatory, rather than having 100 fatal 'accidents' a year?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Apart from the comments by Dr Carson (shouldn't he be struck off?)
As far as I know, there are no issues with Dr. Carson's medical record, so no, he shouldn't. I think his politics are unhinged, but they don't affect his fitness to practice as a surgeon.
As far as the opinions of people who don't want to pay for extra teachers in schools but do want to pay for armed guards to patrol the hallways go, I really don't know where to start.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Then why don't you make those safe ways mandatory, rather than having 100 fatal 'accidents' a year?
I would. In my opinion, they already are mandatory, because not following straightforward safety rules with guns around children is criminal child endangerment, and I would prosecute accordingly.
Making them mandatory won't reduce the number of accidents to zero, though. Seatbelts are mandatory, but children are killed all the time because they're not wearing seatbelts. The kind of person who leaves his loaded gun lying around in his house when the kids come to play is the same as the kind of person who won't bother to strap the kids in "for just a short trip".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
when not even the people who theoretically agree with you hold you in contempt because the problem hasn't been solved yet.
Part of that is that we sometimes forget how long it took to get our gun control legislation sorted. In the UK, it's been almost 100 years. Our first real gun control legislation was in 1920, in response to the number of guns in the country following the end of the war. (Earlier Acts required a licence to carry a gun off your own premises, but that was something you could buy over the counter at a Post Office requiring no form of background check etc). The 1920 Act introduced firearm certificates issued by the police.
We had a series of relatively minor modifications over the years (eg: extension to smooth bore guns, raising minimum age for licenses, the 1937 removal of self-defence as a valid reason for having a gun being possibly the most significant) culminating in the 1968 Firearms Act (which more or less brought those small changes into a single act), bringing in controls on long barrel shotguns and requiring firearms to be stored in a locked cupboard with ammunition stored separately, and bans on people with criminal convictions obtaining a licence. Later legislation has reduced the range of guns permitted, largely in response to Hungerford and Dunblane. There are ongoing consultations about further restrictions of firearms (and, whether the legislation should cover things like airguns or weapons able to inflict lethal electric shocks).
So, it shouldn't come as any sort of surprise if legislation in the US seems to be taking a long time. It took 100 years for UK legislation to get to where we are, and we're still on the way. Current US legislation (difficult to classify as it varies from state to state) is somewhere between the 1920 and 1937 UK Acts. I hope and pray it takes significantly less than 30 years for the US to enact legislation similar to the 1968 Act - which at least made it a requirement for a licence that guns are stored in a secure, locked cupboard with ammunition stored separately, which would at least stop 8 year olds throwing a tantrum the opportunity to get hold of a loaded gun.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Maybe to get the pro-lifers interested, what the USA really need is a bunch of mass shootings of pregnant women in the stomach.
Oh fuck off. I'm pro-life, I'm very very VERY much in favor of strict gun control, and I don't need this kind of shit.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... the kilt has been elevated to a mythical status with invented associations of some tartans with particular clans, festivals for pipes, Highland dancing and folk music, we've even taken a type of sausage and given it a mythic status ...
I'm quite willing to accept that there are groups within the US who feel culturally threatened, and seek something emblematic to hold onto to maintain a cultural presence.
True, but carrying a lethal weapon as an "emblem" of one's culture is a bit more extreme than wearing a kilt or reciting poetry over a plate of haggis and clapshot.
I never said it was a good emblem to pick, in fact I'd say it's a fucking stupid one. I also suspect that a lot of the people who are wandering around openly carrying guns, or in other ways making guns an issue to the extent of preventing more rapid progress towards a safer society, probably haven't considered the real reasons why they holding so tight to the their 'right' to own guns - and if they started to think about where this part of their culture has come from and why they feel the need to defend it so much they might realise that as an emblem of who they are it probably has an emphasis and impact they don't really like. ie: even those who carry guns openly will probably agree that as an emblem of their culture it's a stupid and dangerous thing to wave around.
Open carry and "wave around" are not the same thing, and the "bitter clinger" narrative is already well established.
59 dead in Chicago in September, 350+ shot, including an 11 month old. Worst month there in a decade.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Like you actually give a rat's ass about anybody in Chicago.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I'm getting really sick of all this Chicago business. Not least because earlier today I saw an article pointing out that, when Chicago's actual population is taken into account, the numbers in Chicago are lower than average on some measures.
That's right. Lower.
So quit trying to say how awful Chicago is just because the President is from there, and start asking why many of your other cities are actually worse per head of population than Chicago.
[ 07. October 2015, 02:16: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Like you actually give a rat's ass about anybody in Chicago.
From your lips to Obama's ears...
Maybe he'll swing by the south-side on his way back from Oregon.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Maybe to get the pro-lifers interested, what the USA really need is a bunch of mass shootings of pregnant women in the stomach.
Oh fuck off. I'm pro-life, I'm very very VERY much in favor of strict gun control, and I don't need this kind of shit.
You may be, and I respect you personally a great deal, but until I see large crowds picketting gun stores on the news beamed to us from the USA, and also line-ups of people trying to prevent people from entering gun stores, and ultimately people being arrested for violating court orders to allow people to enter gun stores, I'm not finding it convincing. Where are the gangs of chanting people blocking entrance to these gun stores while displaying graphic pictures of people with bullet holes in their heads and hearts in these non-existent crowds of gun protesters?
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Open carry and "wave around" are not the same thing
Somebody wearing an AR15 into a Starbuck's may not "wave it around" but it's as near as makes no difference. There is no need to open OR concealed carry that kind of weapon.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Open carry and "wave around" are not the same thing
No, but very similar. Afterall Scotsmen don't literally wave around their kilts either (especially if they're true Scotsmen). But, in both cases it's a very public display of alliegence, of identification with a culture or a cause. It doesn't have to be literally waved around to do that, and apart from flags there are very things which are literally waved around but we still use the phrase. You don't need to take a metaphor so literally.
quote:
59 dead in Chicago in September, 350+ shot, including an 11 month old. Worst month there in a decade.
Yes, worst month in a decade. And, for those involved a series of tragedies.
But, in relation to gun control things, by their very nature, take time. Although some things may have very rapid impacts. It's better to look at long term trends rather than outliers.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
....quit trying to say how awful Chicago is just because the President is from there, and start asking why many of your other cities are actually worse per head of population than Chicago.
I don't need to ask why. It's because they have all been dominated by Dimocrat politicians since time out of mind, with strict gun control laws and all other manner of leftist bullshit but hey, we get the government we deserve right?
I don't give a shit about anyone in Chicago but their elected leadership does?
Fuck that.
Literally hundreds dead in Chicago alone this year including very young children and where is Obama off to? White as fuck Roseburg, Oregon. Why? Because that's where the political capital is.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
And the car companies still cover up safety problems and rig cars to fake test results, and eventually (after people are injured or killed) recall millions of cars.
Money for the few is more important than the safety of the many. God Bless Capitalism.
Gotta decrease the population some way, "They" have already taken too hard line on birth control to backpedal.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Meanwhile a friend of Bullfrog's (Gwai's guy) wrote
this:
"Much more than gun control, we must shift our culture of violence to a culture of peace. We need models who will lead us to move beyond resentment and towards an ethic of love, a love that embraces even our enemies."
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
What. You mean that all those politicians sitting in Congress and State legislatures, and the rest of the people who claim to be Christian should maybe, I don't know, try to be like Jesus?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
originally posted by lilBuddha:Money for the few is more important than the safety of the many. God Bless Capitalism.
Gotta decrease the population some way, "They" have already taken too hard line on birth control to backpedal.
They just don't give a shit. More and more, we let politicians who have no connection to the people decide out fates. We are to blame almost as much as they.
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Literally hundreds dead in Chicago alone this year including very young children and where is Obama off to? White as fuck Roseburg, Oregon. Why? Because that's where the political capital is.
Listen, you fucking tool. Obama is going to Oregon because this is where the latest mass shooting was and America doesn't give a fuck about incremental death, especially when the dead are black.
Do I think he should ignore the daily death toll? Hell no. But politicians will focus on the things the public will pay attention to.
If you actually gave a shit, your tirade would mean something. You seem to only use those deaths as a club to swing at a president you do not like, and that is despicable.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What. You mean that all those politicians sitting in Congress and State legislatures, and the rest of the people who claim to be Christian should maybe, I don't know, try to be like Jesus?
They are content with dropping his name. They don't actually know Him.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
....quit trying to say how awful Chicago is just because the President is from there, and start asking why many of your other cities are actually worse per head of population than Chicago.
I don't need to ask why. It's because they have all been dominated by Dimocrat politicians since time out of mind, with strict gun control laws and all other manner of leftist bullshit
You forget, that those gun control laws introduced in major cities have a) had an effect on gun violence (earlier I posted the number of gun related homicides in Chicago which has halved in 20 years - you probably missed that - and other cities have seen similar reductions in gun related crime) and b) been enacted without supporting legislation elsewhere which would have probably made them more effective.
On point b). In big cities there is a lot more crime, a lot more violent crime, and more guns used. That's true of Chicago, New York, LA, London. It's, sadly, part of the nature of big cities. Therefore, moreso than in suburban and rural areas, to cut gun deaths it is more important to cut criminal use of guns (because criminal use is a much more substantial proportion of the total). Which means restricting the access to guns by criminals. There were studies in the US that have looked at where criminals get their guns.
The first thing to note is that the majority (>80% in many cities) of guns recovered were originally legally purchased more than 100 miles from the city. Which, if you hadn't noticed, is because guns (especially hand guns) are very easy to transport. Therefore, to restrict criminal access to guns in a city needs the cooperation of the surrounding areas where those guns are sourced.
Second, those out of city sources basically fall into two categories (indeed many of the remaining 20% of guns sourced within/near the city fall into the same categories). One, stolen from individuals who legally purchased and held them, and the only way to shut down that route of gun access is to remove guns from private ownership (enforcing rules that keep those guns locked in secure cabinets will help as it prevents theft by the opportunist criminal, but no cabinet will keep out a determined thief). The second route was guns legally purchased by people acting on behalf of the criminals, often from a very small number of retailers who were not as rigorous in their background checks as they could be, surely it is not unreasonable to tighten up the retail sector so that people who have do not have the relevant permits or fail the background checks a) don't get to buy a gun and b) get reported to the police for further investigation about why they're wanting a gun? That doesn't evne restrict the rights of the "good guys" to own a gun, though it's possible it may result in some gun stores being closed down if they place their profits above human lives.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
....quit trying to say how awful Chicago is just because the President is from there, and start asking why many of your other cities are actually worse per head of population than Chicago.
I don't need to ask why. It's because they have all been dominated by Dimocrat politicians since time out of mind, with strict gun control laws and all other manner of leftist bullshit but hey, we get the government we deserve right?
I don't give a shit about anyone in Chicago but their elected leadership does?
Fuck that.
Literally hundreds dead in Chicago alone this year including very young children and where is Obama off to? White as fuck Roseburg, Oregon. Why? Because that's where the political capital is.
lilbuddha and Alan have already answered this perfectly well, but I'll summarise in my own way:
1. Mass shooting is a related issue to general gun crime, but it's still a distinct one.
2. Gun controls in the city of Chicago mean very little without some kind of gun-vaporising forcefield at the city limits. I'm pretty sure gun controls in Sydney wouldn't have worked if you could just go and buy the things in Gosford. You want to see gun controls that work? We implemented them across an entire fucking continent.
[ 07. October 2015, 06:12: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
when not even the people who theoretically agree with you hold you in contempt because the problem hasn't been solved yet.
Part of that is that we sometimes forget how long it took to get our gun control legislation sorted. In the UK, it's been almost 100 years.
...
...
Wait a minute, what?
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Just for clarification, when I said 'America doesn't give a fuck...' it was not meant that no Americans care. Just that, as a whole and for practical purpose, America does not.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Thank you for that. (And I agree with that, BTW.) But I just read back and caught a glimpse of two people rubbing their hands over the image of pregnant American women getting shot in the uterus, and your post cleanses the palate.
The thing about giving (generic)your hate free reign? You wind up resembling whatever it is you claim you hate. Dick Cheney could not have come up with a more shining piece of ugliness.
"But I can say shit like that because I am RIGHT!" Yeah, he'd say that, too.
[ 07. October 2015, 06:31: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
when not even the people who theoretically agree with you hold you in contempt because the problem hasn't been solved yet.
Part of that is that we sometimes forget how long it took to get our gun control legislation sorted. In the UK, it's been almost 100 years.
...
...
Wait a minute, what?
Basically, don't let anyone from the UK tell you it's taking a long time to get gun control legislation when it took us a century (and counting, as there are still moves to further tighten those controls).
Of course, by all means tell your own politicians to quit sitting on their backsides and take a bite of the elephant. Hopefully you (as individuals, as communities and your representatives) can look at experience in the UK, Australia and elsewhere where progressive (as in, a sequence of Acts each progressively more restrictive) gun control has been introduced as models that will allow the process to proceed more rapidly.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Wow, helpful advice and modeling? I'm a preschool teacher. I kind of believe that stuff moves the world.
I want to clarify something, though, in relation to my last post-- I am not offended by people pointing out the flaws in my homeland, or even saying other lands are doing better. I am not a flag-waver, I do not thing America is pristine and perfect (Hell, I'm in it, for one), and I do not think being an American make me exceptional, untouchable, etc. It simply makes me a human being born in a specific country.
I do, however, have a jingoistic view of what the average Shipmate is like-- in short, when I come on the Ship, I think I am surrounded by some of the brightest, sharpest a most big hearted people in the English speaking world (and affiliates). What offends me is having that rosy picture disturbed by the kind of grotesque characterizations of other human beings that you would find on a John Birch forum. I think we are smarter than that and better than that.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Can I just add that I think holding an eleven year old criminally responsible is wrong, and its wrong when we do it in the UK too.
I don't agree.
I don't think the American practice of trying a child as an adult when he's accused of a particularly serious crime can ever be justified - the child is still a child, and should be treated as such, whatever he's done, but I don't agree that 11 year olds should be free from criminal sanction.
Children don't suddenly wake up one day and turn into responsible functional adults - it's a gradual transition. It makes sense that the criminal justice system makes the transition with them.
Eleven-year-olds know right from wrong. I have one, and so know many, and whilst they're pretty good at being completely oblivious to things like personal safety and chains of consequence, they're pretty clear about what they are supposed to do and what they are not supposed to do.
Because eleven-year-olds are still children, and still fairly young children at that - dealing with them should look different from dealing with 14-year-olds, which should look different from dealing with 17-year-olds. But I don't think that a get-out-of-jail-free card is the right approach.
(In this particular case, I don't believe any crime has been committed by the 11-year-old. I think the "responsible" adult is guilty of quite a lot.)
I don't think criminal liability is appropriate - though intensive intervention maybe required. There are number of reasons for that.
Firstly, your brain is not fully developed until you are in your mid twenties. At the age of eleven the frontal lobes of your brain are a significant way off full development. This is the area of your brain that governs forward planning and behavioural control.
Secondly, children of that age are only just developing formal operational thought.
Thirdly, most children that age have next to no experience of death - and their conceptual understanding of it is limited.
If we don't think a child of eleven has the conceptual equipment to consent to sex, vote, manage a budget - then it is perverse to suddenly assume as soon as they do something catastrophic we'll assume they know exactly what they're doing.
(As for knowing right from wrong, that is different from having a clear understanding of the scale of enormity of the myriad acts you have been told are not allowed.)
[ 07. October 2015, 06:56: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alisdair
Shipmate
# 15837
|
Posted
Just keep it simple.
No civilised society NEEDS handguns, except in the military and to a limited extent with the police.
Shotguns and hunting rifles do have a place, but they can be more easily regulated.
No one can stop the occasional person who is mentally ill from going postal with any kind of weapon, but there is no need at all to hang on to a culture which glorifies the use of firearms against other people in normal domestic life; it's bad enough glorifying it in time of war.
US 'exceptionalism' is a sad and painful blight on the world, but mostly on the citizens of the US.
Posts: 334 | From: Washed up in England | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
DC...Oklahoma
Not arguing any of that. ...
I'd love to see the data recompiled without DC included, just to see how that changes the reported averages. (The legendary screwed-uppedness of DC government and Congressional "oversight" is worthy of it's own discussion.)
It (on sight) looks* as if the average is average treating each state as the same (which I'm not sure is statistically a good approach). In any case that's what I'll assume, if you want to see it done properly campaign to let the proper statisticians do their job.**
In which case first taking DC as 7.5:
first graph
2.77 - 4.41 (37%)
second graph
3.14 - 4.17 (25%)
(The difference between these 2 is dominated by the difference between Michigan/Minessota)
third graph
3.10 - 3.9 (20%)
*the 50 state list includes other GRD, whereas this is pure homicide, so hard to be sure. But putting the numbers in by eye from the last graph I got 3.7 so I think that's what they've done.
**this is not directed to those who are doing that.
Thanks for that. I agree with the sentiment "if you want to see it done properly campaign to let the proper statisticians do their job". I'm of firm belief in having as much accurate data as possible. I also concur that treating each state as the same is problematic - a large state with a tiny population density (i.e, Wyoming, or Alaska) is necessarily going to have a different experience than a small, densely populated stated (Massachusetts, New Jersey), so the effects of an otherwise identical set of laws may well be very different.
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Meanwhile a friend of Bullfrog's (Gwai's guy) wrote
this:
"Much more than gun control, we must shift our culture of violence to a culture of peace. We need models who will lead us to move beyond resentment and towards an ethic of love, a love that embraces even our enemies."
Amen.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Maybe to get the pro-lifers interested, what the USA really need is a bunch of mass shootings of pregnant women in the stomach.
Oh fuck off. I'm pro-life, I'm very very VERY much in favor of strict gun control, and I don't need this kind of shit.
You may be, and I respect you personally a great deal, but until I see large crowds picketting gun stores on the news beamed to us from the USA, and also line-ups of people trying to prevent people from entering gun stores, and ultimately people being arrested for violating court orders to allow people to enter gun stores, I'm not finding it convincing. Where are the gangs of chanting people blocking entrance to these gun stores while displaying graphic pictures of people with bullet holes in their heads and hearts in these non-existent crowds of gun protesters?
And since when is a group of people concerned primarily with one issue expected to take on every other issue that comes down the pike? You might as well pick on the Occupy crowd, or the tree huggers.
I have this sinking feeling that you're going to point to the term "pro-life" and announce that the term obligates them to take on any life issue whatsoever at full throttle. In which case they'd better pick up euthanasia, inner city poverty, hunger, "black lives matter," and underemployment. Along with free medical care for all, the marginalization of the elderly, and the obesity crisis.
It isn't at all sensible to damn one group of activists because they don't have the time or money to take on multiple issues full throttle all at once.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
US 'exceptionalism' is a sad and painful blight on the world, but mostly on the citizens of the US.
Yes. Because exceptionalism is the antithesis of community.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And since when is a group of people concerned primarily with one issue expected to take on every other issue that comes down the pike? You might as well pick on the Occupy crowd, or the tree huggers.
I don't think that's np's point. Rather, the impression is that the protesters campaigning outside abortion clinics are often (present company excepted) the same people asserting their extreme version of 2nd amendment rights.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Meanwhile a friend of Bullfrog's (Gwai's guy) wrote
this:
"Much more than gun control, we must shift our culture of violence to a culture of peace. We need models who will lead us to move beyond resentment and towards an ethic of love, a love that embraces even our enemies."
Amen.
You might believe this, but I do not. The UK is
not less violent than the US, but fewer people are shot. The answer is gun control.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Yeah. While trying to drag humans towards a more peaceful society should always be a goal, it's not a sufficient solution in timescales that most people appreciate. I mean, it's been a couple millennia since we nailed a guy to a stick for saying how it would be great if we were all nice to each other¹, and even though many have taken him seriously we're still struggling with it.
The awkward truth is that humans² are sometimes violent. Often unpredictably so (notwithstanding our failures to reign in even the predictable violence). It behooves us, as sentient beings, to recognize that the risks of distributed and portable lethality currently outweigh the benefits³.
Control the distributed portable lethality - at least as much as we insist on controlling other dangerous issues. Meaningful licences, actual enforcement of restrictions, continuous pursuit of better general safety - same as motor vehicles.
And, for fuck's sake, eject the manufacturer's mouthpiece from so much influence. The NRA has done more harm than every terrorist organization combined.
¹ Thanks, Douglas Adams.
² Some humans. There are exceptions, happily.
³ And we don't deny that there are benefits. But a couple statistically-insignificant benefits do not magically banish the overwhelming and idiotic risks.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
You know one of the biggest contributors to Chicago's gun violence?
Indiana.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I don't think criminal liability is appropriate - though intensive intervention maybe required. There are number of reasons for that.
I wonder if we're partly dealing with semantics here? You are calling for "intensive intervention", and I assume you wish it to be compulsory, but not "criminal liability". To my mind, compulsory "intensive intervention" sounds like a sensible consequence of a juvenile criminal conviction.
The criminal conviction is the thing that gives you the right to go around imposing your interventions.
quote:
Firstly, your brain is not fully developed until you are in your mid twenties. At the age of eleven the frontal lobes of your brain are a significant way off full development. This is the area of your brain that governs forward planning and behavioural control.
Yes indeed. This is a fine argument for not treating children and adults the same. That's a lot different from "no criminal liability for children".
quote:
Thirdly, most children that age have next to no experience of death - and their conceptual understanding of it is limited.
Not sure I believe this one. I don't think it's relevant - most crime doesn't involve death - and I suspect it also to be false. Every 11-year-old that I know has a perfectly adequate functional understanding of death, many have experienced the death of an elderly relative or beloved pet, and many more have deceased elderly relatives who are regularly discussed in their family.
quote:
If we don't think a child of eleven has the conceptual equipment to consent to sex, vote, manage a budget - then it is perverse to suddenly assume as soon as they do something catastrophic we'll assume they know exactly what they're doing.
I don't claim that we should. To do so would be to claim that we should try children like adults, which I explicitly said that we shouldn't do.
quote:
(As for knowing right from wrong, that is different from having a clear understanding of the scale of enormity of the myriad acts you have been told are not allowed.)
Sure. There is a continuum of understanding of actions and their consequences, and the scale of the enormity of the same. Infants start at one end, and most adults make it pretty close to the other end. Teenage children are in the middle somewhere, and different children will be at different points along the scale.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I would be looking at intervention via health and social care. Lots of things are compulsory for children - without court involvement - school, for example. In cases where children are involved in serious violence it is often a sign of very poor / abusive / ineffective parenting and it may be important to consider whether they should be bringing the child up. If they are to continue to do so, what support the family will be offered.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I don't think criminal liability is appropriate - though intensive intervention maybe required. There are number of reasons for that.
Firstly, your brain is not fully developed until you are in your mid twenties. At the age of eleven the frontal lobes of your brain are a significant way off full development. This is the area of your brain that governs forward planning and behavioural control.
Secondly, children of that age are only just developing formal operational thought.
Thirdly, most children that age have next to no experience of death - and their conceptual understanding of it is limited.
If we don't think a child of eleven has the conceptual equipment to consent to sex, vote, manage a budget - then it is perverse to suddenly assume as soon as they do something catastrophic we'll assume they know exactly what they're doing.
(As for knowing right from wrong, that is different from having a clear understanding of the scale of enormity of the myriad acts you have been told are not allowed.)
Because of all those reasons, that particular little boy probably fully expected the little girl to get up soon afterward -- like the cartoon characters and the kids playing cops and robbers do. He's old enough to know better, but his gut feeling is different than his brain.
Mostly, I don't want the little boy to suffer consequences for this tragedy because that might take some of the blame off the father who, I think, should definitely do some jail time for his criminal irresponsibility.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
While somebody might actually think it's possible to safely let children drive - and in some exception cases it might be true - the fundamental (and developmentally-appropriate) impulsivity of non-adults is a compelling reason to not allow it generally. How this would be different for weapons is baffling.
No, "baffling" is the wrong word. "Totally fucking idiotic" is more what I was trying to convey.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
While somebody might actually think it's possible to safely let children drive - and in some exception cases it might be true - the fundamental (and developmentally-appropriate) impulsivity of non-adults is a compelling reason to not allow it generally. How this would be different for weapons is baffling.
Driving safely on the public roads, with all the scope for unexpected surprises, other drivers and so on is a rather different affair from driving safely on empty private land, say. I certainly think it's possible to enable a typical eleven-year-old to drive safely in the latter environment, assuming the vehicle were fitted to his or her smaller frame.
Having a child routinely carrying a gun around is like driving on public roads: there exist some children who would be safe, but it's a bad idea in general.
Having a child shoot in controlled conditions is like the latter case - it's perfectly possible to achieve safely.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Having a child shoot in controlled conditions is like the latter case - it's perfectly possible to achieve safely.
No it isn't. A gun is a very dangerous object, one that is designed to kill. Accidental deaths occur even when trained adults use them. Children using them will only increase this.
As to an 11 year-old understanding death; they do not. Yes, they know people die and even know they will die. However, the connection between their actions and their mortality is, at best, incomplete.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
