Thread: Fucking Guns Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005506
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Yet another college shooting, Oregon this time.

I predict:

The usual suspects, including me, will post on this thread and make same fucking arguments again.

I hate.

[ 01. October 2015, 20:12: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Oh yeah, and most/all of his gun related crap will turn out to have been legally owned.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
He's dead, Jim.

NEXT!
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Want to express your anger and make a mark on the world? Want to be meaningful?

Shoot people. It's the American way of making yourself feel better at the expense of others.

Exactly how many months in a row is the President going to have to stand up and say something about the unique propensity of his country's citizens to do this?

[ 01. October 2015, 22:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
It's fucking horrible.

We Oregonians also recently had a mass-shooting at a mall, and at a high school.

What.
The.
FUCK.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
According to one definition of mass shooting (at least four victims, dead or injured) in 274 days this year there have been 294 mass shootings in the US (source, Washington Post). That is a rate in excess of one per day, on average. 380 people killed, over 1000 injured with a quarter of the year still to go.

That's just mass shootings. Put in all gun related incidents and that's nearly 10,000 people killed and 20,000 injured in 40,000 incidents. more people are killed by guns in the US every three months than were killed in the 9/11 attacks. The US administration went to war against a country that was not even remotely responsible for the 9/11 attacks because of the deaths of less than 3000 Americans, yet Congress does nothing about the deaths of over 10,000 a year. Does that make sense?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Does that make sense?
Well, when you factor in the $$, it makes perfect sense.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The US administration went to war against a country that was not even remotely responsible for the 9/11 attacks because of the deaths of less than 3000 Americans, yet Congress does nothing about the deaths of over 10,000 a year. Does that make sense?
Of course it doesn't.

A lot of the people who screamed for the war are the same ones blocking any discussion of reasonable gun control laws. They truly do not give a shit how much American blood is shed, at home or abroad.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
'Murrican windbag says The Usual Stuff.

He couldn't possibly be as pissed off about this as anyone in the UK or Australia would be, though.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
'Murrican windbag says The Usual Stuff.

He couldn't possibly be as pissed off about this as anyone in the UK or Australia would be, though.
He took the politicise bullshit and owned it. what is wrong with this? Genuinely curious.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Sarcasm.

My in laws had to sell their house and leave town for a year to unregulated gun bullshit. I am not inclined to let the "American Way" crack pass.


I do thank Alan for at least pointing out that the fucking around about gun control results in loss of American lives. Or does one not rate as American unless one is pulling the trigger?

[ 02. October 2015, 01:49: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Another account of the Presidents speech
quote:
President Obama’s statement was bold and brave .... The President asked the American people to think
Bold and brave indeed.

Ask the people to think?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
It's more like, trying to get then to unthink what they are thinking-- "Holy God, if they take our guns, there will be a liberal police state!" and various other things that People Who Don't Give a Shit are telling them.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
And Doublethink is right-- even Obama is saying, "How many times do we have to say the same old shit?"
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
It's more like, trying to get then to unthink what they are thinking-- "Holy God, if they take our guns, there will be a liberal police state!" and various other things that People Who Don't Give a Shit are telling them.
Well, I suppose that depends on whether people are thinking that, or just turned their brains to neutral and accepting what Fox News tells them. If someone has actually sat down and considered things and reached the conclusion "we need our guns to protect us from a liberal police state" then I'd say they're nuts, but their thinking. I don't think that's what happens though, is it? People just take what's fed them from the right wing media, and follow blindly, unthinkingly, where they are led.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Beats me... maybe we need to go out and interview gun rights advocates or something, because most people I know, even gun owners, have common sense ideas about gun control laws. I can't even begin to think how you get to the place where you think the situation we are in is preferable to making some sensible changes.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I am haunted by a local town meeting incident, in which all of the council except one member voted to deny a business license to a gun shop owner who wanted to put his shop a block away from the local high school. They asked the owner to find a different storefront (at a time when many storefronts were available in the town.) The minute the mayor banged her gavel, arrow of-- suits, really, with Ray-Bans and trench coats-- jumped up from the last row of seats and filed out, quickly. Within a month the store opened in the location near the high school. Apparently they had "lawyered up."

Who the fuck are these people? It was like they swept in out of nowhere.

The "brand" (if you will) that they are associated also owns: a local coffee shop, a couple local car dealerships, and one other business I can't remember. To me, it reeked of money talks. Like RuthW keeps saying, we are an oligarchy at this point.

[ 02. October 2015, 02:34: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
NPR (maybe the "Marketplace" show?) mentioned today ShootingTracker.com. It's been crashing--probably due to over use.

But you may be able to get directly to the 2015 stats here.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
President Obama’s statement was bold and brave .... The President asked the American people to think
Bold and brave indeed.

Ask the people to think?
Bah. Is it bold and brave to ask a turtle to fly?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
It is expedient for the few to die to maintain the liberties of the many.

Or some such rubbish.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I've been ducking the NRA renewal phone calls for several months now. We were basically forced into membership in order to meet a Boy Scout training requirement for Mr. Lamb, but have no intentions of re-upping now that the certificate is in hand. But man are they persistent. (one more call today)
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
President Obama’s statement was bold and brave .... The President asked the American people to think
Bold and brave indeed.

Ask the people to think?
Bah. Is it bold and brave to ask a turtle to fly?
Flying turtles aside, I don't think it is bold or brave for a person who will no longer be standing for election.
However, I thought the bit neutralising the "politicise" rubbish the gun lobbies paid puppets trot out, was a good maneuver.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I've been ducking the NRA renewal phone calls for several months now. We were basically forced into membership in order to meet a Boy Scout training requirement for Mr. Lamb, but have no intentions of re-upping now that the certificate is in hand. But man are they persistent. (one more call today)
They might try and shoot people who don't renew - thus proving that they, and guns, are needed. Wouldn't surprise me. At. All.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't think it is bold or brave for a person who will no longer be standing for election.
So, we're waiting for Hilary or Donald to make a statement regarding gun control?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Bet Bernie already has.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Well, shucks.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
You know, if I was American I'd vote for Bernie. But, that's because I have FB friends who keep posting reports on what he's been saying. If I relied on the news media I'd have never heard of him.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
From the CNN report

quote:
Investigators have interviewed members of his family and friends, they said.

"I will not name the shooter," Hanlin said. "I will not give him the credit he probably sought."
This is what should happen every time. No notoriety, no names given, ever. None.

It may start to lesson the number of people who do it to go down in lights.

[Frown] [Tear]

[ 02. October 2015, 07:27: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
A saw this video by a group of people who want to reform the US gun laws, which I thought was quite powerful.

It isn't graphic, but it is disturbing. I don't know if it has any effect on those who buy guns.

Anyway..


here it is
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
From the CNN report

quote:
Investigators have interviewed members of his family and friends, they said.

"I will not name the shooter," Hanlin said. "I will not give him the credit he probably sought."
This is what should happen every time. No notoriety, no names given, ever. None.

It may start to lesson the number of people who do it to go down in lights.

[Frown] [Tear]
That is a great idea. Hope it catches on.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
LC--

You're not alone in getting those calls. I did a search on "how to stop the NRA", and there were many hits from people in your situation.

Good luck.
 
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You know, if I was American I'd vote for Bernie. But, that's because I have FB friends who keep posting reports on what he's been saying. If I relied on the news media I'd have never heard of him.
He's the real life Jed Bartlett, in other words?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
More like the real life Henry Drummond.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
who?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
It is expedient for the few to die to maintain the liberties of the many.

Or some such rubbish.
And the deaths continue.

I'm just old enough to remember the anti-breathalyzer and anti-seatbelts campaigns of the 1960s here in Britain, quoting the same authoritarianism.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't think it is bold or brave for a person who will no longer be standing for election.
So, we're waiting for Hilary or Donald to make a statement regarding gun control?
Yahoo article has candidate comments about halfway down the page, after the tweets.
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
Another mass killing followed by the traditional yadda, yadda, yadda, as DT pointed out, to be followed soon by.... the traditional nothing.

I watch these reports, and the only thought I have nowadays, having become desensitized to the detail and the righteous words and the expostulative proclamations of the gun nuts, is a genuine curiosity as to what it will actually take to overcome this onanistic need to unnecessarily own an unnecessarily powerful gun.

Somewhere there is presumably an elusive tipping-point, where something so truly horrific occurs that the NRA will be emasculated and its supporters will shamefacedly slink off and pretend never to have heard of it. (Whilst secreting their arsenals in dark places just in case there's another revolution.... just in case.)

Until then, I guess I'll just metaphorically chew gum and listen to the reports of another shooting, followed by the obligatory press conferences from the local law-enforcement officers, and the governor, and the president, all of whom thank the first-responders ('cause it's in the script - Yes, there's a script) and ask for prayers (oh, the irony) and just generally look uncomfortable at being here again.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
I watch these reports, and the only thought I have nowadays, having become desensitized to the detail and the righteous words and the expostulative proclamations of the gun nuts, is a genuine curiosity as to what it will actually take to overcome this onanistic need to unnecessarily own an unnecessarily powerful gun.
There is a school of thought that if Sandy Hook wasn't sufficient, nothing will be.

I think about the only thing that might still work is if the victims of a mass shooting are rich, powerful, right wing and gun nuts.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Don't you read The Grauniad, Alan?

Lots about Bernie in there.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
I'm afraid I just don't understand why people need guns. Someone told me that they need a gun in case someone else has a gun. That just doesn't make sense as the situation will just snowball. It is always going to be difficult to disarm the criminals, but surely if the rest of the population turned in their guns it would make such a difference to the gun problem in the USA.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Don't you read The Grauniad, Alan?

Lots about Bernie in there.
It's been a long time since I've had time to read a paper. I get most of my news from the BBC (Breakfast when I'm in the UK, online from here).
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
I watch these reports, and the only thought I have nowadays, having become desensitized to the detail and the righteous words and the expostulative proclamations of the gun nuts, is a genuine curiosity as to what it will actually take to overcome this onanistic need to unnecessarily own an unnecessarily powerful gun.
There is a school of thought that if Sandy Hook wasn't sufficient, nothing will be.

I think about the only thing that might still work is if the victims of a mass shooting are rich, powerful, right wing and gun nuts.
That is, AIUI, is the NRA's primary objective. Back in the eighteenth century when the westerm coast of North America was a British colony, some of the local population took arms and used violence to succesfully overthrow their then rulers.

I suppose the NRA stand for the right to do the same sort of thing again should their rulers once again take no notice of the will of the people (according that is to those who run the NRA), but I would have thought the 1861-1865 war would be enough to inform people how wrong that is.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Republican Party, NRA have blood on their hands.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Hmmm ... I think you'll find that the 13 Colonies were on the eastern coast of what is now the USA, Sioni.

The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution enshrined the right of citizens to bear arms, of course - at a time when the fledgling republic had a tiny standing army and in the context of a 'well-ordered militia'.

The whole point was that they could defend themselves against slave uprisings or attacks from Native Americans (often sponsored by the British over the border in Canada) if their standing army and militia were engaged elsewhere.

It made perfect sense in a frontier setting and when there was nothing more lethal to hand than single shot muzzle-loading muskets and hunting rifles.

I've heard it said - by an American who knows a fair bit of history - that later on and even in the Wild West guns weren't generally openly on show. The whole thing about guys sat dealing stud in honky-tonk saloons with revolvers protruding from their belts is partially mythological. In many western towns you were required to hand your guns into the marshal when you arrived in town and they were impounded until you rode away again.

Of course, guns have always been more common in the US than most western European countries - but generally .22 hunting rifles and so on rather than the AK47s and semi-automatics that seem to be the weapon of choice for those who go on mass shooting sprees.

Whilst the whole gun culture thing is attached to particular views of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' in some people's minds, then there ain't gonna be any change any time soon.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
What does "common sense" gun regulation actually mean?

Same old yadda, yadda is right judging by this thread. What exactly do you all suggest would have stopped this or any other mass shooting? And if you say bans and confiscation then you are an idiot.

And to those who can't understand why people need guns, why do people need alcohol? Certainly alcohol is killing on a similar pace each year.

If grown folks can't handle gun ownership then they can't handle alcohol either. Alcohol prohibition worked out so well, why did we ever give up on it? Same for "illegal" drugs. How can we possibly be suffering through an epidemic of heroin deaths when heroin has been illegal for decades?

Easier to blame the guns than the culture and the leaders thereof, I suppose.
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
Do you not think that the mass ownership of guns is perhaps in some way intrinsically linked with the culture, then?

You don't have to ban guns. Imposing slightly more barriers to ownership and restrictions on use might not go amiss, though.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Firstly, thanks to Gamaliel for at least reading for comprehension.

Romanlion makes a good point. Culture and leadership contribute to the behaviour of everyone in society and to my mind our leaders, in business and government primarily but right the way down to middle-managers and supervisors feel that they have to be seen as strong and powerful. With that motivation, it can hardly be surpisning that when a "difficult decision" needs to be made they takes the option that makes them look most powerful.

That isn't always (I'd venture that it is very rarely) the best option but it does account for a lot of macho posturing by those in positions of power. If we look at those who have taken guns into schools and colleges and shot a dozen or so classmates I expect we will find that the huge majority are anonymous nobodies with no power, status and responsibility and that they were unknown outside their home town until the took a gun into school.

YMMV, but I reckon our leaders at all levels need to consider outcomes more than the maintenance of their own status.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
A saw this video by a group of people who want to reform the US gun laws, which I thought was quite powerful.

It isn't graphic, but it is disturbing. I don't know if it has any effect on those who buy guns.

Anyway..


here it is
Wow.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
What does "common sense" gun regulation actually mean?
It starts with the recognition that things aren't going to change overnight.

It starts with a national discussion on what are the legitimate reasons why someone might need a gun. An ongoing discussion that in 10, 20, 30 years may result in the number of reasons why people might have a gun decreasing.

And, coupled to that what sort of guns are suitable for the reasons people have guns.

It includes a discussion on licensing. What restrictions get placed on who can have a gun licence? Do you need a license for each gun, or simply a license to have guns? Does the license include requirements for safe storage of guns?

And, have some form of amnesty mechanism where people with guns they don't need can turn them into the police for destruction, probably with some form of financial compensation (with accompanying proof of ownership - though the thought of crooks handing over illegal weapons in exchange for ready cash does appeal!).

And, finally, don't have high expectations of a very rapid transition to a gun-free society. When the country is awash with more guns than people it's going to take a long time for there to be a significant reduction in the number of guns in society.
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
In response to Obama's statement , one of my Facebook acquaintances, who obviously lives in the US, posted the following. The guy is a hard-working self-employed family man. He hunts, and has strong views on guns (if that wasn't obvious!) His political leanings may be apparent from this rant. He posts stuff like this often. I'm really not sure how one would address this kind of logic from an administrative or legislative perspective. Pandora's (gun)box has been well and truly opened in the US. #youareallgoingtodie

quote:
I do speak up, and I do agree it's all become routine. The tragedy, the sadness, the reaction, the call for more gun laws, the total dismissal of common sense. This ended when two more guns were introduced. Why is it so hard to understand that had others there had guns the whole thing may have never happened? Why is it so hard to admit that had it happened that less would have died? The tragedy of this routine is we collectively refuse to grant people the liberty to save themselves. That we continue to pretend it's the result of lax gun laws, when they have never been more restrictive and these tragedies have never been more common.
I speak up, and I place the blame squarely on people just like this man. Leaders who preach that good people need to sacrifice liberty to stop bad people, even though recent events clearly show that it's these restrictions that are the biggest contributor to these tragedies. Even though they surround themselves and their families with armed men. If it's common sense to provide armed guards for elected officials, because a small handful have been shot, how can it not be common sense that we would benefit from the same thing after so many have been killed like sheep in places they are forbidden to protect themselves. Shame on you Mr President.

 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
What exactly do you all suggest would have stopped this or any other mass shooting? And if you say bans and confiscation then you are an idiot.
Australia begs to differ.

quote:
Australia established strict gun control in response to a massacre in Tasmania that left 35 people dead in 1996. Since then, Australia hasn't witnessed any mass shootings.

 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Quoting a FB acquaintance
quote:
If it's common sense to provide armed guards for elected officials, because a small handful have been shot, how can it not be common sense that we would benefit from the same thing after so many have been killed like sheep in places they are forbidden to protect themselves.
Because the secret service guys and gals have been extensively trained to handle a gun. If you want everyone to have the right to carry a gun for defence of themselves and others, fine. Just make sure they receive the level of training and psychological assessment that the secret service receive.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The thing is, romanlion, we all tend to think that the way things are done wherever we happen to live is the 'norm'.

If they were suddenly to relax gun laws here in the UK everyone would think the government had gone stark staring mad.

I wasn't aware of how easy it was to get hold of assault rifles and so on back in the 1980s until the Hungerford Massacre. That led to stiffer legislation. As did the Dunblane tragedy. The last gun massacre to take place here in the UK was carried out with legally owned shotguns.

No one is calling for a ban on those.

Of course no-one's saying that bans or confiscations would prevent all such incidents - but you have to admit they seem all too common on your side of the Pond and far less common in most Western European countries as well as Australia and other Anglophone countries.

You have to ask yourself why that is.

And whether the rest of us are 'idiots'.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
Bans and confiscation are not going to happen in the US. We are in Kansas, not Oz.

Next?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bans and confiscation are not going to happen in the US. We are in Kansas, not Oz.
Why not? Because you all love shooting each other and burying your kids so much?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bans and confiscation are not going to happen in the US. We are in Kansas, not Oz.
Why not? Because you all love shooting each other and burying your kids so much?
Yes, yes of course!

My wife an I are pregnant right now because we are fresh out of kids to shoot and bury.

[Roll Eyes]

Because the Constitution.

If we had wanted to remain a colony we could have. We didn't.

If the UK had wanted to remain the driver of the world's economy and culture they should have fought a little harder I guess.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bans and confiscation are not going to happen in the US. We are in Kansas, not Oz.

Next?
I believe it would involve less loss of liberty than the Homeland Security Act (including the USA Patriot Act and more besides). It might even save more lives too.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bans and confiscation are not going to happen in the US. We are in Kansas, not Oz.

Next?
I believe it would involve less loss of liberty than the Homeland Security Act (including the USA Patriot Act and more besides). It might even save more lives too.
Yeah, this boggles my mind. The Land of the Free accepts a massive limit on freedom so readily.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
What does "common sense" gun regulation actually mean?
I think there are some obvious minimal possibilities here;
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bans and confiscation are not going to happen in the US. We are in Kansas, not Oz.
Why not? Because you all love shooting each other and burying your kids so much?
Yes, yes of course!

My wife an I are pregnant right now because we are fresh out of kids to shoot and bury.

[Roll Eyes]

Because the Constitution.

If we had wanted to remain a colony we could have. We didn't.

If the UK had wanted to remain the driver of the world's economy and culture they should have fought a little harder I guess.
That's just so fucking moronic.

Look, no one's planning on re-colonising the USofA. Least of all the UK.

Your government has the worlds most powerful military at it's disposal, including a nuclear arsenal capable of burning the planet to a cinder several times over. Compared to that a few rednecks with their semi-automatics "just for killin' a few deer" are going to make no bloody different.

Life isn't a movie. A bunch of high school kids aren't going to turn the tide against a Commie invasion. You're not going to need to blast away an endless tide of zombies. And, your best defence against an alien invasion is the common cold.

I'm sure there are some arguments in favour of ordinary people having guns that are worth discussing. Yours sure aren't among them.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bans and confiscation are not going to happen in the US. We are in Kansas, not Oz.
Why not? Because you all love shooting each other and burying your kids so much?
Yes, yes of course!

My wife an I are pregnant right now because we are fresh out of kids to shoot and bury.

[Roll Eyes]

Because the Constitution.

If we had wanted to remain a colony we could have. We didn't.

If the UK had wanted to remain the driver of the world's economy and culture they should have fought a little harder I guess.
That's just so fucking moronic.

You started it, bud.
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
Enter stage Right: repr'sentin' the status quo and wingnuts everywhere,
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bans and confiscation are not going to happen in the US. We are in Kansas, not Oz.

Next?
Nuthin's gonna change round here boy, nuthin'. We fought for the right to arm ourselves needlessly, and we'll fight to keep our guns, even if we have to kill everyone who has a different point of view. My ancestors didn't come to this country so that they could be terrorised by immigrants. (wait, what?) Fuckin' Democrats, with their fancy ideas about letting people have opinions that go against Republican ideology. It's the arms companies and the NRA who pay to run this country, not the bleeding-heart liberals. (ambles off humming Duelling Banjos.)
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:


Because the Constitution.
Yeah, because nobody changed the US Constitution once it had been written, right?

Cast in stone, impossible to change. Other than the 27 times that it was.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bans and confiscation are not going to happen in the US. We are in Kansas, not Oz.

Next?
No, you're not Australia. However,

quote:
What exactly do you all suggest would have stopped this or any other mass shooting? And if you say bans and confiscation then you are an idiot.
is empirically wrong. Bans and confiscations clearly, evidentially, do decrease drastically or totally eliminate mass shootings. You don't accept that - but we have a word for people who don't accept provable facts. That word is 'wrong'.

The 2nd amendment to your constitution allows you to have a small arsenal at home: it also allows members of your citizenry to use legally-held guns to kill large numbers of their fellows on a remarkably regular basis. Good for you. Most of the rest of the world thinks you're fucking nuts for allowing this situation to exist, let alone let it continue.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
The Onion is way ahead of you, romanlion
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:


Because the Constitution.
Yeah, because nobody changed the US Constitution once it had been written, right?

Cast in stone, impossible to change. Other than the 27 times that it was.
Hillary should make repeal of the second amendment a platform plank then. That should just about seal the election for her.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
I'm really not sure how one would address this kind of logic from an administrative or legislative perspective.
By telling him that his chance of successfully using a gun to deal with a criminal is approximately 1 in 23, and asking him whether he'd buy any other appliance that only worked correctly once in every 23 attempts? The other 22 times the gun is fired, it will have gone off accidentally, or be used for suicide, or will be used against you by the criminal.

That's the biggest piece of bullshit about guns for protection - that everyone manages to believe that good people hit the target while bad people miss. Because that's what happens in Hollywood movies, right? The star lead shoots truly and wins the day, while the baddies have really bad aim.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
That headline in the Onion has been used before, and it's a killer: "'no way to prevent this', says only nation where this regularly happens." I'm not sure if it's the only nation with regular massacres.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I don't think when romanlion says, you're an idiot if you favour bans and confiscations, that means that bans don't work, does it? I assume it means that bans are simply politically unacceptable in the US.

Trouble is, this becomes circular and self-fulfilling. It's not acceptable because I don't accept it.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think when romanlion says, you're an idiot if you favour bans and confiscations, that means that bans don't work, does it? I assume it means that bans are simply politically unacceptable in the US.
[Overused]
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... The 2nd amendment to your constitution allows you to have a small arsenal at home: it also allows members of your citizenry to use legally-held guns to kill large numbers of their fellows on a remarkably regular basis. Good for you. Most of the rest of the world thinks you're fucking nuts for allowing this situation to exist, let alone let it continue.
Strictly speaking, the current interpretations of the 2nd Amendment allow small arsenals at home. The 2nd Amendment was written to allow Southern states to have armed slave patrols a.k.a. "militia". All the arguments about brave Colonists hunting and defending their homes from tyrannical gummints are post hoc mythological bullshit. How that came about is a long story. What isn't a long story is that the 2nd Amendment has NEVER, EVER been interpreted as allowing anybody to have any weapon. It is perfectly legal and constitutional to place reasonable limits on weapons and their owners. It's just politically challenging.

And I'm sick and fucking tired of everybody instantly turning to mental illness as an explanation for these horrors. Lots of healthy people shoot each other on a regular basis over the stupidest things. And it's not like a healthy person can't buy 27 guns and THEN get sick ... but doctors aren't allowed to ask their patients about guns in the home because of the fucking gun nuts. They're the real crazies - the ones who think the likelihood of an accidental or deliberate shooting is totally worth it for their Walter Mitty fantasy of being Rambo one day.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think when romanlion says, you're an idiot if you favour bans and confiscations, that means that bans don't work, does it? I assume it means that bans are simply politically unacceptable in the US.
[Overused]
This we know already. It's just ironic that the one thing that has been proven to work is the one thing that won't happen.

Ironic? Sorry: I meant fucking nuts.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think when romanlion says, you're an idiot if you favour bans and confiscations, that means that bans don't work, does it? I assume it means that bans are simply politically unacceptable in the US.
[Overused]
Nice quote-mining.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
I thought the National Guard was the "Well-regulated Militia". Then again, it's organisaed by the Feds and they aren't to be trusted. Heck, aren't they the ones who put airbags in your car? Dammit, I want the freedom to turn my brain to mush on the dashboard.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I'm going to suggest a compromise: those in favour of gun regulation will just tut and roll our eyes when someone with a gun and a grudge commits a mass shooting. In return, those not in favour will have to say: "We know how to stop this from happening but refuse to act because we are spoilt, petulant, selfish moral pygmies."

How does that sound?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
What could Barry be waiting for?

Has he misplaced his pen?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Bans are not forbidden in the US. Here's the problem-- suppose you ban certain users from having guns.Then you send the feds to go take them from those people. How do you think a gun owner is going to prevent you from taking his gun?
Especially if they have people like the NRA giving them a route for organization?

What happened ' the last time we had this discussion"? Assholes responded to the pleas of their fellow Americans by wandering shopping malls with rifles strapped on their backs. Do you not see how this behavior might demonstrate a threat? And might effect how people have the discussion in the first place? As bold as Obama's statement was, he had to throw in that " we aren't coming for your guns" mantra, didn't he?

Upthread someone said, " the situation is going to snowball." No, it already has snowballed. And avalanched. Decades ago. A very huge fucking genie is out of the bottle and is roaming around with an M-16. No, make that a million genies. And the reponse to " put that down" is always gonna be " Him first."

My nephew was a very troubled kid, who at age 17 got his hands on a weapon, and shot himself and another person. Do you not think I wish there was something in place that would have prevented hm from getting his hands on a gun in the first place? Some screening procedure that would have told a retailer, holy shit, this kid is underage and has a background of gang association. Do not sell.

His brother is a gun nut. So, just to add to whatever redneck bohunk Murrican images you got going there- 19 year old Latino American boy, hanging out with a dodgy group-- their opinion of the gun control debate is that whatever laws are passed will only serve to make sure people of color are unarmed and white folk control the guns. Ok, talk him out of that. Go ahead, it's easy, right?

You know what this conversation is like? It is like living up to your neck in raw sewage, so thick you can't move your arms.. There are a row of people standing in an observation deck, with their hands on the output valve, arguing about whether it is actually sewage or not, many idiots standing in there with you crapping their pants and proudly announcing it, and the rest if the world is folding their arms and saying, you must love the smell or you wouldn't stay there. And responding to your cries of despair by shrugging and pointing at the pants crappers.

A second amendment harpy obviously doesn't give a shit that ( for instance) hundreds of children in the SF Bay Area are growing up in places like Hunter's Point and East Palo Alto, crammed into Section 8 housing smack dab in the middle of gang holdouts, surrounded by people who are ready to shoot at the drop of the hat and people who think the only way to be prepared for life there is to get another damn gun. He doesn't care that hundreds of kids are living under such consistant fear that they have to be taught to play some other games besides gun play-- that it's not that they occasionally make a block into a gun, but that they never put the pretend guns down.

But which of the rest of you do, either? It's more fun to rub people's face in the sewage, it appears. Five or six Americans come on this thread expressing their frustration and outrage about gun laws, about how lack of such effects them and their communities, and you pick fucking romanlion as our poster boy? Fuck that.

And if you do care, why not lend your support and encouragement to American folk who are actually engaged n the colossal task of figuring out how to get those genies back in the bottle? Or at least acknowledge they exist?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
What could Barry be waiting for?

Has he misplaced his pen?
Do you actually understand the constitutional arrangements of your own country?

It's bizarrely amusing that there are folks in your country who not only justify guns as a means of resisting tyranny, but also believe that you still have a tyrant anyway.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
and you pick fucking romanlion as our poster boy?
We really didn't.

That makes about as much sense as suggesting that on the thread about homosexuality, I took the straight people expressing homophobia as the "poster boys" for all straight people because those are the ones I spent my time arguing with.

[ 02. October 2015, 15:49: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
What could Barry be waiting for?

Has he misplaced his pen?
I'm sorry? I think you meant to say: "I know how to stop this from happening but refuse to act because I am a spoilt, petulant, selfish moral pygmy."
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... The 2nd amendment to your constitution allows you to have a small arsenal at home: it also allows members of your citizenry to use legally-held guns to kill large numbers of their fellows on a remarkably regular basis. Good for you. Most of the rest of the world thinks you're fucking nuts for allowing this situation to exist, let alone let it continue.
Strictly speaking, the current interpretations of the 2nd Amendment allow small arsenals at home. The 2nd Amendment was written to allow Southern states to have armed slave patrols a.k.a. "militia". All the arguments about brave Colonists hunting and defending their homes from tyrannical gummints are post hoc mythological bullshit. How that came about is a long story. What isn't a long story is that the 2nd Amendment has NEVER, EVER been interpreted as allowing anybody to have any weapon. It is perfectly legal and constitutional to place reasonable limits on weapons and their owners. It's just politically challenging.

And I'm sick and fucking tired of everybody instantly turning to mental illness as an explanation for these horrors. Lots of healthy people shoot each other on a regular basis over the stupidest things. And it's not like a healthy person can't buy 27 guns and THEN get sick ... but doctors aren't allowed to ask their patients about guns in the home because of the fucking gun nuts. They're the real crazies - the ones who think the likelihood of an accidental or deliberate shooting is totally worth it for their Walter Mitty fantasy of being Rambo one day.
Excellellent post.


" Mental illness" is all well and good as a distraction, but nobody is addressing the collective PTSD of people who are born, live, and die in areas of high gun violence. At least, not in a functional way. The mental illness is group chronic fear.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
Imagine for a moment that tomorrow the US passes Oz style gun restrictions.

How do you see the enforcement proceeding?

Australia's "buy-back" program netted between 500,000 and a million guns, depending on your source. Between a quarter and a third of guns, again depending.

US citizens own orders of magnitude more firearms than this. Call it plus or minus one firearm for every man, woman, and child in the country.

A "buy-back" wouldn't even scratch the surface, but let's pretend that through some miracle red-neck epiphany they manage to buy back half of those. We are still in the >hundred million guns range.

Are we going to do door to door searches? Do you think that would increase or decrease the odds of violence? How many police and/or military personnel would refuse the order? How much money would be reasonable to spend on such an effort? Would otherwise law-abiding gun owners who refused to comply become felonious criminals? Would we have more success against the instantaneous black market that would spring up than we have against "illegal" drugs? If not, what would be the point?

Connecticut, bluer than blue, can't even enforce it's own reactionary sandy hook gun laws.

I imagine Sisyphus picking up a gun a blowing his brains out...
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
and you pick fucking romanlion as our poster boy?
We really didn't.

That makes about as much sense as suggesting that on the thread about homosexuality, I took the straight people expressing homophobia as the "poster boys" for all straight people because those are the ones I spent my time arguing with.
I am hearing a lot of frustation about how " we" won't get the laws changed without much.acknowledgement of what an epic task even getting people to discuss the issue is. And I'm sorry, your very first comment on this thread was a " what do you expect from Those People?" shrug. If you actually give a fuck about us, it's not coming across.

Do me a favor, read my comment about my nephew the gun nut and come up with an argument against his iron clad assumption that gun control laws are an excuse to put Latinos and black people at a disadvantage. I tried for an hour one Christmas. Nothing I said landed. Maybe people who have fixed the problem might supply us their magic rhetoric.

[ 02. October 2015, 16:07: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Imagine for a moment that tomorrow the US passes Oz style gun restrictions.

How do you see the enforcement proceeding?

Australia's "buy-back" program netted between 500,000 and a million guns, depending on your source. Between a quarter and a third of guns, again depending.

US citizens own orders of magnitude more firearms than this. Call it plus or minus one firearm for every man, woman, and child in the country.

A "buy-back" wouldn't even scratch the surface, but let's pretend that through some miracle red-neck epiphany they manage to buy back half of those. We are still in the >hundred million guns range.

Are we going to do door to door searches? Do you think that would increase or decrease the odds of violence? How many police and/or military personnel would refuse the order? How much money would be reasonable to spend on such an effort? Would otherwise law-abiding gun owners who refused to comply become felonious criminals? Would we have more success against the instantaneous black market that would spring up than we have against "illegal" drugs? If not, what would be the point?

Connecticut, bluer than blue, can't even enforce it's own reactionary sandy hook gun laws.

I imagine Sisyphus picking up a gun a blowing his brains out...
"Waah, waah, waah," said the moral pygmy. "It's too hard."

Fucking grow a pair and sort it. One gun at a time if you have to. People - people you know and perhaps even love - are dying. Set an example and have yours melted down. Maybe then Kelly's nephew will start to take notice.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Imagine for a moment that tomorrow the US passes Oz style gun restrictions.

How do you see the enforcement proceeding?

Australia's "buy-back" program netted between 500,000 and a million guns, depending on your source. Between a quarter and a third of guns, again depending.

US citizens own orders of magnitude more firearms than this. Call it plus or minus one firearm for every man, woman, and child in the country.

A "buy-back" wouldn't even scratch the surface, but let's pretend that through some miracle red-neck epiphany they manage to buy back half of those. We are still in the >hundred million guns range.

Are we going to do door to door searches? Do you think that would increase or decrease the odds of violence? How many police and/or military personnel would refuse the order? How much money would be reasonable to spend on such an effort? Would otherwise law-abiding gun owners who refused to comply become felonious criminals? Would we have more success against the instantaneous black market that would spring up than we have against "illegal" drugs? If not, what would be the point?

Connecticut, bluer than blue, can't even enforce it's own reactionary sandy hook gun laws.

I imagine Sisyphus picking up a gun a blowing his brains out...
"Waah, waah, waah," said the moral pygmy. "It's too hard."

Fucking grow a pair and sort it. One gun at a time if you have to.
Excellent suggestion! Thank you very much!

I will forward your profound insight directly to the White House, home of the greatest moral pygmy of us all.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Do me a favor, read my comment about my nephew the gun nut and come up with an argument against his iron clad assumption that gun control laws are an excuse to put Latinos and black people at a disadvantage. I tried for an hour one Christmas. Nothing I said landed. Maybe people who have fixed the problem might supply us their magic rhetoric.
But that's a problem we never had. We don't have the same race relations issues that you do (which is not to say that we haven't had race relations issues), so I can't tell you how to solve them.

As to the whole business of who is "we" and who is "those people" etc etc... well, to be honest a key difficulty in the USA is that your entire culture is very individualistic, meaning that it's very difficult for a majority to impose upon a minority for the good of society as a whole. To put it another way, even if 90% of Americans support significant changes to gun laws, your culture tends to celebrate the ability of a few percent who don't want that to loudly say "FUCK YOU" and carry on crapping in their pants or whatever metaphor you choose.

That contributes. Your problem is not just a gun culture, it's a take on the world culture. The great American dream isn't a cohesive society, it's being the one to beat all the other fuckers to the top of the greasy pole.

If America wants to defeat the scourge of guns, it's not going to be about physically taking the guns (although that would sure help), it's going to be about changing an entire mindset that says a person who confronts the world and solves his problems with a weapon is a hero. That's going to be a truly colossal effort.

But it's going to have to be an American effort. For one thing, there's American exceptionalism, which translates into a mindset that America is there to teach the world things and doesn't have things to learn. When Bernie Sanders suggests doing something more like Europe (I can't even remember what the topic was), people are shocked.

[ 02. October 2015, 16:46: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Excellent suggestion! Thank you very much!

I will forward your profound insight directly to the White House, home of the greatest moral pygmy of us all.
Irony isn't your strong point. Neither is making obviously moral decisions.

You. What are you going to do? Apart from bleat on that it's not your fault, it's not your problem, you can't think of a solution, you don't have to act. Spoilt, petulant, selfish moral pygmy.

[ 02. October 2015, 17:06: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
@ romanlion

Of course it is not possible to "do an Oz" in the US context. That's not really the issue.

See here from recent history

The NRA is a most powerful lobbyist and represents some very powerful interests. It is able to mobilise a blocking majority even against modest reforms. And what was the nub of their counter-argument. Why it was this!

quote:
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," Wayne LaPierre of the NRA
The only thing? The attempted legislation which was voted down was modest, but it would have been a start. Even something as modest as this was lost.

quote:
The Manchin-Toomey Amendment was a bi-partisan piece of legislation sponsored by Joe Manchin, a Democrat, and Republican Sen. Pat Toomey that would require background checks on most private party firearm sales. The bill known as Manchin Amendment No. 715 was voted on and defeated on April 17, 2013 by a vote of 54 - 46 because in order to pass it needed 60.
The NRA would appear to have the votes in their capacious pockets.

[ 02. October 2015, 17:23: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Do me a favor, read my comment about my nephew the gun nut and come up with an argument against his iron clad assumption that gun control laws are an excuse to put Latinos and black people at a disadvantage. I tried for an hour one Christmas. Nothing I said landed. Maybe people who have fixed the problem might supply us their magic rhetoric.
But that's a problem we never had. We don't have the same race relations issues that you do (which is not to say that we haven't had race relations issues), so I can't tell you how to solve them.

As to the whole business of who is "we" and who is "those people" etc etc... well, to be honest a key difficulty in the USA is that your entire culture is very individualistic, meaning that it's very difficult for a majority to impose upon a minority for the good of society as a whole. To put it another way, even if 90% of Americans support significant changes to gun laws, your culture tends to celebrate the ability of a few percent who don't want that to loudly say "FUCK YOU" and carry on crapping in their pants or whatever metaphor you choose.

That contributes. Your problem is not just a gun culture, it's a take on the world culture. The great American dream isn't a cohesive society, it's being the one to beat all the other fuckers to the top of the greasy pole.

If America wants to defeat the scourge of guns, it's not going to be about physically taking the guns (although that would sure help), it's going to be about changing an entire mindset that says a person who confronts the world and solves his problems with a weapon is a hero. That's going to be a truly colossal effort.

But it's going to have to be an American effort. For one thing, there's American exceptionalism, which translates into a mindset that America is there to teach the world things and doesn't have things to learn. When Bernie Sanders suggests doing something more like Europe (I can't even remember what the topic was), people are shocked.
You are pretty much preaching to the choir, saying stuff I am pretty sure I've said myself. If not in this thread, on the last two or three. I am fully aware of the difficulties facing people who want gun control. You really become hyper-- aware of those problems when you are fighting them.

I wanted to put a face on the debate, though. In my work, I am pretty much on the front lines of this stuff-- trying to teach kids that individualism needs to be balanced by community, that cooperation is more rewarding than fighting to be first, that wise people are willing to learn from others rather than being content with "exceptionalism." You say, " I can't help you with your nephew" but that is exactly where the front line is-- Americans trying to reason with other Americans. Individuals bucking heads with individualism. And I am saying ( again) when you don't acknowledge that people are actually attacking the front line, it does nothing to help,them progress.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
And another thing--- a childcare professional is also on the front lines of dealing with the fallout ofa sick culture-- kids come into schools bringing the attitudes and values of their environment, and very often challnging those attitudes is the first step in helping a kid learn to socialize. Please don't lecture me on how damaged "YOUR culture" is as if I don't know it-- it's kind of like telling an ER nurse about the prevalence of auto accidents. I assure you I am up to my neck in it.

[ 02. October 2015, 17:47: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on :
 
Hmmm.

Seems to me the reason why the UK, and Australia, and New Zealand, etc, have been able to enact effective gun control laws is because we do actually love our neighbour, and regret his/her passing, and sorrow with his/her family. I am not persuaded the same is true of the US.

Cheers, PV.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ romanlion

Of course it is not possible to "do an Oz" in the US context. That's not really the issue.

See here from recent history

The NRA is a most powerful lobbyist and represents some very powerful interests. It is able to mobilise a blocking majority even against modest reforms. And what was the nub of their counter-argument. Why it was this!

quote:
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," Wayne LaPierre of the NRA
The only thing? The attempted legislation which was voted down was modest, but it would have been a start. Even something as modest as this was lost.

quote:
The Manchin-Toomey Amendment was a bi-partisan piece of legislation sponsored by Joe Manchin, a Democrat, and Republican Sen. Pat Toomey that would require background checks on most private party firearm sales. The bill known as Manchin Amendment No. 715 was voted on and defeated on April 17, 2013 by a vote of 54 - 46 because in order to pass it needed 60.
The NRA would appear to have the votes in their capacious pockets.
And it seems like the more you point out things like this are happening, the more you get," You must like the smell..."

Sometimes this American's Gordian Knot solution seems tempting.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Please don't lecture me on how damaged "YOUR culture" is as if I don't know it
I'm not lecturing you. You're choosing to read things as being in opposition to you, personally, whether they are intended that way or not. It's your culture because you're in it, not because you have personal responsibility and ownership for the whole of the generalised characteristics of several hundred million people. And in English, the words for second person singular and second person plural are the same.

Do you honestly want me to say "their culture", as if you're not an American in America? To actively exclude you from your own society?

And your whole "you must like the smell" thing is bullshit. Certainly, your response to barnabas' post is bullshit. When people say "there's a smell over there, something ought to be done about it", stop implying "you must like the smell" into those words. WE GET THAT IT'S HARD.

[ 02. October 2015, 18:47: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
Not that it should have any particular impact on the proceedings, but this does appear rather ironic.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Actually, I'm sorry, Barnabas-- I focused on the content rather than your compassionate tone. You seem to recognise that the situation involves a large number of human beings in very serious trouble, rather than some faceless Evil Empire.

It feels like Congress just wants us all to kill each other-- "to reduce the surplus population."
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
So he went to a specialist EBD school with a focus on autism. Wore the same military style outfit every day. Either didn't socially interact or became extremely angry about noise levels most people would tolerate easily. And had something like 15 legally held fire arms. Social media profile about how fab the IRA were as an undefeated army. Posted threats on 4chan.

Give it a few days and the triggering incident will have been discovered.

So far, sequence as predicted.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Please don't lecture me on how damaged "YOUR culture" is as if I don't know it
I'm not lecturing you. You're choosing to read things as being in opposition to you, personally, whether they are intended that way or not. It's your culture because you're in it, not because you have personal responsibility and ownership for the whole of the generalised characteristics of several hundred million people. And in English, the words for second person singular and second person plural are the same.

Do you honestly want me to say "their culture", as if you're not an American in America? To actively exclude you from your own society?

And your whole "you must like the smell" thing is bullshit. Certainly, your response to barnabas' post is bullshit. When people say "there's a smell over there, something ought to be done about it", stop implying "you must like the smell" into those words. WE GET THAT IT'S HARD.
I don't think you are talking to me personally, but I,don't think you get how unhelpful this us and them language is. We ( if I can be collective) need to heal from exceptionalism and all that other stuff if we are going to survive. Those of us who want that could use backup!

Look back at Ani's song-- published a year before 9/11. She spelled it right out-- the people most impacted by this shit have the least voice. THAT'S WHAT'S HARD.

I thnk the current push to stop celebrating the shooter and uphold the victims is what is needed-- the America parking its ass in a Congress chairs is not the America that is bleeding. We won't change thing by giving more power to powerful assholes-- in this case, by allowing their mindset to define America-- but by upholding the America that needs more voices. The Tom Joad America. The Joe Hill America.

I think y'all Oz/ Brits can be more of a force for good in that respect than you realize. For one thing, I don't think you realize how incredibly healing it is to heat someone ( like Barnabas, or Alan) say, " how can these fucks treat their own people this way?"
YES! THANK YOU!
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ romanlion

Of course it is not possible to "do an Oz" in the US context. That's not really the issue.

See here from recent history

The NRA is a most powerful lobbyist and represents some very powerful interests. It is able to mobilise a blocking majority even against modest reforms. And what was the nub of their counter-argument. Why it was this!

quote:
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," Wayne LaPierre of the NRA
The only thing? The attempted legislation which was voted down was modest, but it would have been a start. Even something as modest as this was lost.

quote:
The Manchin-Toomey Amendment was a bi-partisan piece of legislation sponsored by Joe Manchin, a Democrat, and Republican Sen. Pat Toomey that would require background checks on most private party firearm sales. The bill known as Manchin Amendment No. 715 was voted on and defeated on April 17, 2013 by a vote of 54 - 46 because in order to pass it needed 60.
The NRA would appear to have the votes in their capacious pockets.
The NRA has never gotten a dime of support from me, or any of my family so far as I know, and I cannot recall ever seeing a single piece of mail addressed to me from them, paper or electronic.

Personally I don't see their particular brand of manipulation as any more insidious than the financial lobby, or the pharmaceutical lobby, or the military/defense lobby.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I think that ignoring the shooter is a mistake, because it is not random. Aside from the gun control issues, people who are fine do not do things like this. I know people with mental health issues and developmental disorders are usually not violent more at risk from others than a risk to others.

But.

People who do things like this are almost always seriously disturbed and almost always showing significant signs of deterioration first. Notoriety is a side issue, and suppressing talk about the perpetrator potentially risks suppressing the debate that needs to happen about mental health care.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
@ romanlion

That looks like a non-sequitur to me. Why should they lobby you?

[Unless of course you are a congressman or a senator whose vote on gun laws might need a bit of encouragement.]

[ 02. October 2015, 19:21: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion

Personally I don't see their particular brand of manipulation as any more insidious than the financial lobby, or the pharmaceutical lobby, or the military/defense lobby.
Fair point. Still insidious, though. Last time I heard a story like Lamb Chopped 's was one of my ex- Mormon friends describing being dogged by her former ward.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think that ignoring the shooter is a mistake, because it is not random. Aside from the gun control issues, people who are fine do not do things like this. I know people with mental health issues and developmental disorders are usually not violent more at risk from others than a risk to others.

But.

People who do things like this are almost always seriously disturbed and almost always showing significant signs of deterioration first. Notoriety is a side issue, and suppressing talk about the perpetrator potentially risks suppressing the debate that needs to happen about mental health care.
Not necessarily ignoring him, just making the death toll by gun the focus of the problem.
Definitely we need to ask how someone "showing signs of deterioration" ( as the case may be) got access to a weapon.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ romanlion

That looks like a non-sequitur to me. Why should they lobby you?
I didn't suggest that they should. You directed a post @me all about the NRA. I figured you must have pegged me as a member/supporter of theirs. I am not, and have never been.

They always pop up quickly in these discussions though. They are the boogeymen behind those awful, heinous guns. Never mind that whatever legislation they manage to defeat wouldn't have prevented an incident like yesterday anyway.

That is why I asked earlier in the thread what "common sense" gun laws look like. What specific new regulation could have been in place that would have stopped that guy from having 10 or 15 guns?

Prohibit anyone attending a "special school" from owning firearms? You might as well get right to KA nephew's point and throw blacks and hispanics in for good measure for all the traction that effort would get.

If Obama truly were bold and brave he would say what he means. Anyone touting the merits of Australian-styled gun laws is talking about bans and confiscation. Everyone knows it, so just say it, and quit being chicken-shit about it. Unless of course you have lifetime secret service protection and you prefer the political hammer in your hand rather than upside your head.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I'm with Kelly. All you non USAians -- denigrate us, please. Accuse us of being uncivilized, at length, on all your talk shows and editorial pages. Write sarcastic stinging articles. Mock us without mercy for our dingbat gun laws. Assert that China, or Australia, or some -- any! -- other country has fewer random gun deaths per capita. See if you can generate a meme that'll go wild on the interwebs. Naughty videos! Twerking starlets! Something involving a cat!

See if you can shame our lawmakers into action. We, the citizenry, have tried. Give us some covering fire from across the water, if you will.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Actually, I said the opposite-- I said we need help escaping from the cultural jail that Rupert Murdoch, the industrial military complex, and the NRA has stuck us in.

Unlike Ani, I don't wanna flee to Canada. I want my own home to be better. And I want to teach the kids, we can be better.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
In other news-- Oh, you little piece of shit.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Keep the fucking guns.

Charge $100 a bullet in taxes, to be spent on social assistance programs.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
That is why I asked earlier in the thread what "common sense" gun laws look like.
You've already had your answer. You can stop asking.

The rest of the planet (pretty much, maybe excepting maybe Somalia and IS, where gun-owning is probably mandatory) knows what "common sense" gun laws look like.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:


That is why I asked earlier in the thread what "common sense" gun laws look like. What specific new regulation could have been in place that would have stopped that guy from having 10 or 15 guns?
This is what I have to do to work in my field:
Supply my fingerprints.
Supply a record of my immunizations.
Submit to a criminal background check.
Have three or four personal references on hand.
Answer a list of questions (under penalty of fraud) about mental and physical health issues.

I think anyone picking up a freaking piece should have to do something similar. (Minus immunization.)

[ 02. October 2015, 20:19: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Keep the fucking guns.

Charge $100 a bullet in taxes, to be spent on social assistance programs.
Did you say this before? I feel like I heard it before. In any case-- good idea as any.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I get that Americans must feel pretty pissed off when the British, Australians, New Zealanders and most continental Europeans - and heck, Canadians - sit in moral judgement and say, 'Well, you've only got yourselves to blame ...'

I don't believe that American citizens are intrinsically more violent or selfish than anyone else - nor that the rest of us can polish our halos - but somewhere along the line they've bought into a wierd might is right and Hollywood quick on the draw thing ... in some contexts that can be helpful - like when Nazi Germany is on your doorstep - but even then there was international co-operation, it was not a unilateral thing ...

Romanlion's 'the Brits should have fought harder' thing reveals the mindset at its most crass and simplistic. Parliament could not have predicted in 1783 that the wayward colonies would turn into an economic superpower - and the UK's economic dominance also lay in the future at that stage - and arguably, the loss of the US colonies enabled Britain to expand her Empire elsewhere ...

Not only that, wars aren't only won or lost out of the barrel of a gun. The war with the colonies was expensive and unpopular and nobody liked the idea of fighting what were still considered to be our own people.

An American once told me that the British had been the only nation in history which had had the 'guts' to invade the US. WTF?!

Guts didn't come into it. Who else would have been in a position to do so - back in 1812-14 which is when he was thinking of. The Spanish weren't in a position to do so.

The French weren't interested - they sold Louisiana to fund their European adventures. Who else would have wanted to? The Scandinavians?

Dickheads like romanlion give a great nation a bad name.

When I think of the USA I'd like to think of Shipmates like Kelly Alves and Mousethief, Cliffdweller and Lamb Chopped not knuckle-dragging morons like romanlion.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion

Personally I don't see their particular brand of manipulation as any more insidious than the financial lobby, or the pharmaceutical lobby, or the military/defense lobby.
Fair point. Still insidious, though. Last time I heard a story like Lamb Chopped 's was one of my ex- Mormon friends describing being dogged by her former ward.
To be fair, I can think of one plumber and two magazines that behaved exactly the same. ETA: And one boyfriend.

[ 02. October 2015, 20:38: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
As I try to distract further myself to not think of other dead people close to me and funerals upcoming, may I ask, would it be possible to regulate behaviour: to make it absolutely forbidden to carry around a gun unless you have a permit for it, and a lawful activity to use it for, i.e., you have a hunting licence, you're taking it for repair, you're taking it to a target range. All other circumstances are offences, more or less the regulations in many countries. The restriction of ownership is another matter, this is about behaviour.

Sure it might be controversial or hard, and you might find that police in enforcing it have to kill a few thousand people who are not threatening anyone, but were not obedient to the law, and didn't obey the police directions when observed. Statistics on the googleyweb suggest more than 30,000 people are killed per year by guns in USA. Would 10% or 20% or 50% of this amount be acceptable to kill during enforcement? 3, 6 or 15,000? It might be good use of your army.

You could also adopt the Israeli idea and demolish the homes of people who carry around guns. Or maybe chop off their hands like our Saudi Arabian allies do. Or maybe use drones and pinpoint take out people with guns when needed. A little aggressive enforcement might go a long way.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
This is what it looks like to the rest of the world.

I'm due to visit the US next year. There were 22 mass shootings (by this metric) in that state alone. That's just peachy.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
That article references the Shooting Tracker site Golden Key referenced on page 1, which is a crowdsourced effort of Americans sending news of local shootings to their database. So, the stories that inform what " the rest of the world sees" are coming from here. I believe it started on Reddit, provoked by high pissedoffedness about mass media underreporting. ( Chck their info page to see the ridiculous justifications the major news outlets use to not call something a "mass shooting".)


So, for every upload you see on that site, picture someone in Akron, Boston, Chula Vista, Tacoma, Tempe, whereever, sitting down and typing in a URL for a local news item. That's how many of us care about this shit.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess in my head what state it is [Frown] .

[ 02. October 2015, 21:08: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
The Guardian is also running The Counted, because apparently, your government says you're not to be trusted with statistics.

878 people killed after interacting with the cops. That makes me feel extra safe.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The Guardian is also running The Counted, because apparently, your government says you're not to be trusted with statistics.

No surprise there.

Thank God for the people providing crowdsource info tracking sites, though. That way people have some chance of having their voices heard.

[ 02. October 2015, 21:25: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
(Thanks, Gamaliel.)
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Romanlion's 'the Brits should have fought harder' thing reveals the mindset at its most crass and simplistic.
Had you bothered to read my post in proper context, (i.e. a response to an even more crass, simplistic, downright stupid comment from another limey shitbag such as yourself) perhaps you would have taken it for what it was and not launched into a political/historical justification for the collapse of your empire...

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:


Dickheads like romanlion give a great nation a bad name.

When I think of the USA I'd like to think of Shipmates like Kelly Alves and Mousethief, Cliffdweller and Lamb Chopped not knuckle-dragging morons like romanlion.
But based on those tired, limp-dicked attempts at insult along with the gratuitous ass-licking of anyone with a higher post count than you it's clear that you weren't the most clever or creative from your litter.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
God, I forgot what a douche you are.

And "limey?" Really? Who do you think you are, Duchess?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Had you bothered to read my post in proper context, (i.e. a response to an even more crass, simplistic, downright stupid comment from another limey shitbag such as yourself)
That would be me, the other limey shitbag. What did I say again? Oh, yes. That the alternative to some sort of gun control is for these mass murders to keep on happening at the rate of over 10,000 per year.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I thought no true Scotsman is a limey.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Had you bothered to read my post in proper context, (i.e. a response to an even more crass, simplistic, downright stupid comment from another limey shitbag such as yourself)
That would be me, the other limey shitbag. What did I say again? Oh, yes. That the alternative to some sort of gun control is for these mass murders to keep on happening at the rate of over 10,000 per year.
Fuck it, I don't see how the buyback scheme wouldn't do something.Even if it only reduced the toll to 5,000
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That would be me, the other limey shitbag. What did I say again? Oh, yes. That the alternative to some sort of gun control is for these mass murders to keep on happening at the rate of over 10,000 per year.
Meh. You have to remember that he's a fully signed up member of the "We know how to stop this from happening but refuse to act because we are spoilt, petulant, selfish moral pygmies" club.

It would be an interesting exercise, however, to ask him how many US citizens would have to die before it became necessary to Do Something. Clearly 10,000 a year just isn't enough.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Keep the fucking guns.

Charge $100 a bullet in taxes, to be spent on social assistance programs.
Great plan. If what you're looking for is another civil war.

There are still quite a few people in this country who use guns in order to get food.

Most gun nuts I know already have a lot of ammunition stockpiled.

I'm not sure I want people to have less practice firing guns and actually hitting their targets because ammunition is too expensive for them to practice.

Also, the vo-tech crowd retains knowledge of how to cast metal into various shapes. Like, the shape of a bullet. Or a gun.

Now, I'll grant you that a mentally ill person who has got it in his head to shoot up a school may not have this particular skill set or the time and patience to actually make their own gun and ammunition, so there could still be value in making it more difficult to get large amounts of ammunition...
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
As for the Second Amendment, I would think that "strict constructionists"/"literal meaning" advocates would arge that citizens should be allowed to have exacty the same weapons (and no more)that were avaiable when the amendment was approved. They wouldn't want an unconstitutional expansion of that amendment.

Law enforcement and the military would of course be exempt according to a literal reading.

People could still hunt and defend their homes. Mass murder would be impossible.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
roman lion--

If you're going to quote Twain in your sig, then at least raise the level of your insults, sir!

Twain insults (Quotations.about.com)

Insults (TwainQuotes.com).
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That would be me, the other limey shitbag. What did I say again? Oh, yes. That the alternative to some sort of gun control is for these mass murders to keep on happening at the rate of over 10,000 per year.
Meh. You have to remember that he's a fully signed up member of the "We know how to stop this from happening but refuse to act because we are spoilt, petulant, selfish moral pygmies" club.

It would be an interesting exercise, however, to ask him how many US citizens would have to die before it became necessary to Do Something. Clearly 10,000 a year just isn't enough.
Well, if we're into US citizens killed by guns, it already is much more than 10000. That figure was for murder. If you add in accidental deaths and suicides then I would be very surprised if you didn't add an extra 20000, or more, dead Americans.

And, fuck it, those numbers include one of our own.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
As I try to distract further myself to not think of other dead people close to me and funerals upcoming, may I ask, would it be possible to regulate behaviour: to make it absolutely forbidden to carry around a gun unless you have a permit for it, and a lawful activity to use it for, i.e., you have a hunting licence, you're taking it for repair, you're taking it to a target range. All other circumstances are offences, more or less the regulations in many countries. The restriction of ownership is another matter, this is about behaviour.
Would regulations like that stop the killings in the US?

(Mostly they just seems to have led to the largest prison population in the world and a bunch of people have no say in how the government works).
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
As I try to distract further myself to not think of other dead people close to me and funerals upcoming, may I ask, would it be possible to regulate behaviour: to make it absolutely forbidden to carry around a gun unless you have a permit for it, and a lawful activity to use it for, i.e., you have a hunting licence, you're taking it for repair, you're taking it to a target range. All other circumstances are offences, more or less the regulations in many countries. The restriction of ownership is another matter, this is about behaviour.
Would regulations like that stop the killings in the US?

(Mostly they just seems to have led to the largest prison population in the world and a bunch of people have no say in how the government works).
Regulations alone no. Regulations plus enforcement yes. I'll bet many of the reg's required already exist and all that's needed is for police chiefs to get themselves out of gear. It would however make them unpopular.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, fuck it, those numbers include one of our own.
Two.

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Regulations alone no. Regulations plus enforcement yes. I'll bet many of the reg's required already exist and all that's needed is for police chiefs to get themselves out of gear. It would however make them unpopular.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you truly understand the conditions on the ground in the US. I know it's hard - it's hard even for us because it's such a big country and the laws vary from state to state - but a lot of those laws have been enforced for a long time in a lot of places. Granted, stop-and-frisk has always been disproportionately enforced on black and brown men (leaving too many of them unemployed, unable to vote, and unable to receive federal benefits, etc.) instead of white NRA members, but I'm not convinced a lot more regulations are going to solve our violence problems.

I'm also not sure why you think enforcing them would make the police chiefs unpopular. Police killing people, particularly unarmed people, make them unpopular.

American culture is sick. I'm not sure governmental regulation can heal it. If you have any specific policy recommendations that haven't been tried (and haven't failed) in some American city, I'd certainly be willing to discuss them. But the US isn't Europe, both in terms of culture and the simple fact that we have so many guns that are already on the ground that even changing the gun laws now doesn't necessarily help stop the violence. People can blame the NRA for being too powerful and blocking federal legislation all they want, but I'm not sure programs that failed on a local level would suddenly succeed if only they were big enough (federal).
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ romanlion

That looks like a non-sequitur to me. Why should they lobby you?
I didn't suggest that they should. You directed a post @me all about the NRA. I figured you must have pegged me as a member/supporter of theirs. I am not, and have never been.
[snip]
That is why I asked earlier in the thread what "common sense" gun laws look like. What specific new regulation could have been in place that would have stopped that guy from having 10 or 15 guns?
Well you figured wrong about me. Whether or not you are a member or supporter of the NRA has nothing to do with the question of whether their lobbying strength prevents any gun reform legislation getting through Congress.

As to the effectiveness of the legislation which has failed so far, I can see no instant legislative solution to the gun culture woes of the USA. It will take a massive hearts and minds change and that could take decades.

How do you eat an elephant? One mouthful at a time. It will take a lot of patience and education to wean folks off the spurious protection afforded by owning guns. You just have to start somewhere. And surely anything is better than LaPierre's crassly simplistic view. Isn't it? Surely you can see that for the nonsense it is?
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
No single measure can solve a problem that has so many contributing factors. People who say, "Well, X wouldn't have prevented Y" are conveniently ignoring whether X can prevent A, B, and C.

It's odd how when it comes to preventing gun deaths, American ingenuity and determination fail completely - apparently if there isn't an instant, perfect, complete solution to the problem, there's no point in even trying for partial solutions. That's pretty fucking pathetic from a bunch of people who think they're so fucking exceptional. It's like saying that since antibiotics can't cure cancer, they're useless. Or that since seatbelts won't protect you from a flying rock through your windshield, there's no point wearing them.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
... I'm not sure I want people to have less practice firing guns and actually hitting their targets because ammunition is too expensive for them to practice......
Won't make any difference. Cops, who presumably can get as much practice as they want and have to maintain a certain standard, regularly miss whatever they're shooting at in real-life situations, and those misses sometimes hit innocent bystanders. All those awesome shots in movies and TV are FICTION.

quote:
New York City police statistics show that simply hitting a target, let alone hitting it in a specific spot, is a difficult challenge. In 2006, in cases where police officers intentionally fired a gun at a person, they discharged 364 bullets and hit their target 103 times, for a hit rate of 28.3 percent, according to the department’s Firearms Discharge Report. ...In 2005, officers fired 472 times in the same circumstances, hitting their mark 82 times, for a 17.4 percent hit rate. ...
A Hail of Bullets
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
PV--

quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Hmmm.

Seems to me the reason why the UK, and Australia, and New Zealand, etc, have been able to enact effective gun control laws is because we do actually love our neighbour, and regret his/her passing, and sorrow with his/her family. I am not persuaded the same is true of the US.

Cheers, PV.
Gee, thanks. Such insight, compassion, and wit. Take a long walk off a short pier.

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
How do you eat an elephant? One mouthful at a time. It will take a lot of patience and education to wean folks off the spurious protection afforded by owning guns. You just have to start somewhere. And surely anything is better than LaPierre's crassly simplistic view. Isn't it? Surely you can see that for the nonsense it is?
Perfection.
[Overused]

Also-- go get 'im, Golden Key
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Also, there's this on the whole Second Amendment thing.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
From the article:
quote:
if the Founders hadn’t wanted guns to be regulated, and thoroughly, they would not have put the phrase “well regulated” in the amendment.
Exactly!
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

It will take a lot of patience and education to wean folks off the spurious protection afforded by owning guns.
If you think it is spurious rather than necessary, then we may not be able to converse. No matter how condescending anyone is.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

It will take a lot of patience and education to wean folks off the spurious protection afforded by owning guns.
If you think it is spurious rather than necessary, then we may not be able to converse. No matter how condescending anyone is.
Protection might be necessary. What's spurious is the idea that guns provide protection. Again, only 1 in 23 uses of a household firearm are an actual case of successful protection. These statistics were widely circulated at the time of Sandy Hook, including here on the Ship.

Any other appliance that didn't work when you actually wanted it to, you'd take it back to the store, not vow to prevent the government from getting rid of it.
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
quote:
Anyone touting the merits of Australian-styled gun laws is talking about bans and confiscation. Everyone knows it, so just say it, and quit being chicken-shit about it.
I'll say it--ban handguns and rifles with detachable magazines (you're not allowed to use them for hunting anyway, in most states). Repeal the 2nd Amendment if that's what it takes. It'll take a while to actually confiscate all of them, and it might get ugly, because the gun nuts don't really believe in democracy or the rule of law anyway, but that's no reason not to get started.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Couple of things:

--SmartGunLaws.org has thoughts and stats. Nothing on the Oregon shooting, yet.

--From Op-Ed News, a few years ago: a Colorado man wrote about why he bought guns, and why he got rid of them.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:
Anyone touting the merits of Australian-styled gun laws is talking about bans and confiscation. Everyone knows it, so just say it, and quit being chicken-shit about it.
I'll say it--ban handguns and rifles with detachable magazines (you're not allowed to use them for hunting anyway, in most states). Repeal the 2nd Amendment if that's what it takes. It'll take a while to actually confiscate all of them, and it might get ugly, because the gun nuts don't really believe in democracy or the rule of law anyway, but that's no reason not to get started.
All sorts of ideas coem to mind

1. Find a good war somewhere and work off all the macho aggression there

2. Consider why you have the 2nd amendment - frontier and Native American wars and the like. Now, arm the native Americans on their little bit of what they have left, after the rest of the racists stole it, and let them have a go. A kind of rifle revenge shoot out. Mind you the level of health they have in comparison with the rest of the nation means they aren't in the best position to argue ....

3. Arm everyone man, woman and child - and invite a free for all. last one standing wins. It'd reduce the welfare bill y'know and there'd be a big redneck rush to get Obama first.

4. Get over the idea that when in disagreement pull a gun: the rest of us tend to use words - can be equally wounding I agree but at least there's survival

5. Sensibly, explore - really explore - the psyche behind gun ownership. Just because I can doesn't equate in an honest world to because I can then I must. Explore and deal with what it is in the American psyche that says the gun is always King and aggression always wins the day.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
saysay

No need to converse. As orfeo says, studies have been made. The gun lobby has always put lot of effort into attempts to refute them.

The Philadelphia study.

But if that is too heavy or thought to be too selective, there is also this argument.

The Protection Paradox.

"The more people who own guns for self protection, the more shootings there will be."

"The widespread ownership of protective weapons increases the risks for everyone".

I really did not mean to condescend and I apologise for any impression of condescension I may have given. There is strong evidence and there are powerful arguments in support of the assertion that belief in the protection provided by gun ownership is ill-founded. Of course it will be true in some cases and they can always be cited. These will keep the protection paradox in play unless and until longer term solutions are put in place to help a better understanding.

[ 03. October 2015, 06:19: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Alan--

quote:
Well, I suppose that depends on whether people are thinking that, or just turned their brains to neutral and accepting what Fox News tells them. If someone has actually sat down and considered things and reached the conclusion "we need our guns to protect us from a liberal police state" then I'd say they're nuts, but their thinking. I don't think that's what happens though, is it? People just take what's fed them from the right wing media, and follow blindly, unthinkingly, where they are led.
I think it's a mixture. They're fed a lot of crap, yes, from the right wing media, and TV and film. And it's basically un-American to trust the gov't--that's why all the checks and balances. A couple of the founding guys even wrote that we might need a bloody revolution, now and again. Plus the pilgrims, pioneers, forging a new land, and fighting to protect your piece of it. Plus, for some people, a civil war that didn't turn out the way they wanted. Plus the Cold War. Plus a whole lot of changes (pick any you like) that scare a whole bunch of people, and that they don't understand. Plus American mythology and legends, exceptionalism, and a fascination with outlaws. (E.g., Jesse James.) Plus actual, real danger.

Plus...we've never managed to turn to the next page in our story. It's stuck. So we keep scribbling notes in the margins of our myths. If we can find a way to put *this* page to rest, turn the page, and start a new chapter of a new, less violent mythology, we might be able to get past our gun obsession. If not,...

[Tear]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Something I wonder, off and on:

The people (tbh, seems to be guys) who feel a need to grab fame and glory by dying in an outsized, violent way--why do they have to do something *bad*? Is that the only niche that their sickness allows them? Why not do something *good* that's dangerous?* Go on rescue missions. Train to fight wildfires. Volunteer with Ebola victims. Play Robin Hood. Heck, emulating John Brown might even be a step in the right direction--it would at least avoid killing innocent/non-complicit people.

Even something like base-jumping in a flight suit would be both very dangerous and much more positive. And might even be fun.

In "Starmind", the wonderful last book of an intriguing sci-fi trilogy by Spider & Jeanne Robinson, there are "rapturists"--the exact opposite of terrorists. They do good things in sneaky, sometimes illegal ways. Robin Hood meets Random Acts of Kindness.

Why not do that, or be the next Banksy, or do guerrilla gardening, or go on a mission with Greenpeace?

Is there any way to get potential shooters and actors-out to redirect their energies a bit? Like nudging a meteor away from Earth, rather than blowing it to smithereens or letting it destroy us??


NOTE: I'm not suggesting that anyone should actually do any of this, especially when it involves breaking the law or hurting anyone. I'm just asking why.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
This comes back to the fact the shooters are usually quite seriously distrubed and their state is deteriorating. It is not just about what they want to do, it is about what they can do. Mercer got chucked out of army basic training after 28 days. He hadn't, according to most media reports, got more than very basic social skills - which would have stopped him doing most of the things you suggest.

Frankly, even when they engage in mass shootings they generally do it in such a haphazard fashion that they kill far fewer people than the weapons and ammo they bring would permit, if their fuctioning was less compromised.

[ 03. October 2015, 08:30: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Spot on, Doublethink. And that argument points directly to the risks of "ease of access".

I've looked at Supreme Court rulings and the 2008 DC v Heller ruling (5-4) confirms the individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes. Some regulatory restrictions by state law are permitted in principle by this statement.

quote:
The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.
I think it has been pretty coy about clarifying that presumption of permissibility, but in principle it is there.

So states could indeed, at least in principle, regulate to restrict access to guns by the mentally ill. Have any tried to do so?

[Link to 2008 ruling.]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Yes, that is why regulation matters. People who commit spree killings are not typical career criminals with the illegal support network and contacts that implies.

These shootings happen regularly, when was the last time you heard of one of these spree killers having a history of acting with others to commit crimes ? These are not usually people who go round and threaten people if they owe money, or steal cars to order.

These are people who struggle to connect with others and feel thwarted and persecuted in their lives. They are often odd enough to attract bullying in communal contexts that worsens the problem - and that may ultimately focus their anger on a particular target.

[ 03. October 2015, 10:00: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Also, the vo-tech crowd retains knowledge of how to cast metal into various shapes. Like, the shape of a bullet. Or a gun.
And then there are 3D printers. I've heard of guns made that way. I would think you could probably make the bullet casing, then stuff it with whatever.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Mostly the shooters die, and there is then a lot of retrospective theorising.

I thought folk might be interested in this.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Thanks, Doublethink.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
(ambles off humming Duelling Banjos.)
Please don't dirty a fun piece of music by associating it with the ideas you were satirizing. Thx.
[Biased]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Having read this about the shooter, my reaction is basically "what a pathetic piece of shit".

Meanwhile, here in Australia we've had a 15-year-old boy kill one person before being killed himself. The whole thing is freaking bizarre. He targeted a police station but his victim was actually a civilian IT worker, and a Buddhist of Chinese origin to boot. But the kid? Iraqi-Kurdish, born in Iran (so apparently a refugee). There's no way a person of Kurdish background should be sympathising with the radical Islamists such as ISIS.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Go read the jlg threads in limbo.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Meanwhile, here in Australia we've had a 15-year-old boy kill one person before being killed himself. The whole thing is freaking bizarre. He targeted a police station but his victim was actually a civilian IT worker, and a Buddhist of Chinese origin to boot. But the kid? Iraqi-Kurdish, born in Iran (so apparently a refugee). There's no way a person of Kurdish background should be sympathising with the radical Islamists such as ISIS.
ISIS aren't the only nutjobs in the world. It's quite possible this boy was suffering from the trauma of life before fleeing and the journey, in a foreign country and culture. That's enough to push quite a few people over the edge. Just because that person's from a largely Muslim country doesn't mean he's therefore sympathetic to ISIS. Another victim of the fuck up world we've created, intent on making others victims as he goes down.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Go read the jlg threads in limbo.
Ouch. And yes.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Yes, that is why regulation matters. People who commit spree killings are not typical career criminals with the illegal support network and contacts that implies.

These shootings happen regularly, when was the last time you heard of one of these spree killers having a history of acting with others to commit crimes ? These are not usually people who go round and threaten people if they owe money, or steal cars to order.

These are people who struggle to connect with others and feel thwarted and persecuted in their lives. They are often odd enough to attract bullying in communal contexts that worsens the problem - and that may ultimately focus their anger on a particular target.
Another thing is: it is hard to think of a spree shooter that wasn't a young man.

The problem with the rugged individual/ top of the heap image we use to sell men stuff is that we are ultimately selling loneliness and isolation. Community requires things like compromise, cooperation, attention to the needs of others-- none of which are things a "tough guy" does. So, when a young man is bullied and isolated from his peers, we have this societally provided self soothing tool. A security blanket with the legend," You don't need anyone, you are a lone wolf maverick."
So, when a young is having trouble simply just being with people, he doesn't even have the vocabulary to ask for help with this. We teach them there is something wrong with needing people.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
A coming together of three things. A discussion, thanks to the leader of the Labour Party, of the MAD doctrine. A spree shooter, again. And an attack on a hospital, which may, or may not, have held a few Taliban, but definitely doctors on sabbatical from their home hospitals and patients resulting from the recent attack on their city.

There was a man who took on Piers Morgan replayed on the radio this morning, about how essential it was for Americans to have the right to bear guns. Shrieking out, and he claimed to be the sane one. Today

[ 03. October 2015, 15:53: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
That was not, I hope you realise, intended as a general criticism of Americans. I know perfectly well that the majority do not have a devotion to weaponry.
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
Just to hit a few of the fallacies and inaccuracies on the prior pages:
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
(ambles off humming Duelling Banjos.)
Please don't dirty a fun piece of music by associating it with the ideas you were satirizing. Thx.
[Biased]
It may be too late to worry about Duelling Banjos being associated with unpleasant thoughts.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
saysay

No need to converse. As orfeo says, studies have been made. The gun lobby has always put lot of effort into attempts to refute them.

The Philadelphia study.
A study looking at whether or not a city gun owner successfully used their gun in self-defense against another person with a gun has absolutely nothing to do with what most gun owners are talking about when they say they keep a gun for protection.

If you want to change minds, you have to engage arguments. But the left in the US insists on trying to control the conversation.

quote:
But if that is too heavy or thought to be too selective, there is also this argument.

The Protection Paradox.

"The more people who own guns for self protection, the more shootings there will be."

"The widespread ownership of protective weapons increases the risks for everyone".
Well, it would seem to be a tautological argument that the more guns there are, and the more people who own them, the more shootings there will be. Again, doesn't necessarily change minds about whether or not that's more acceptable than the alternative.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So states could indeed, at least in principle, regulate to restrict access to guns by the mentally ill. Have any tried to do so?
Only all of them.

As with most things the US government does, it seems to have made things a pain in the ass for law-abiding citizens, while not keeping the guns away from persons prohibited.

And to me Baltimore suggests that creating a huge criminal underclass of people prohibited from owning handguns doesn't do a lot to reduce the actual violence.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
The NRA has spent a lot of time and money into persuading people in the boondocks who own hunting rifles and the like that gun controls will affect them. That is bollocks. The problem is guns, especially handguns, in towns.

When we British talk about gun controls it's worth remembering that people can still own shotguns and more besides. My b-i-l used to have a hunting rifle for pest control in his job as a gamekeeper. Some of his kills ended up on the table too, very nice .

The difference is that certificates are issued by the police and they need to see good reason to issue a certificate. There are over half a million licensed shotguns and over 150,000 licensed firearms (which includes higher-powered air-rifles). Certificates for handguns are very tightly restricted now, and mostly restricted to muzzle loaders and historic guns. A few prominent politicians (notably in Northern Ireland) have in the past been allowed handguns as personal protection weapons but that's about it.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
... A study looking at whether or not a city gun owner successfully used their gun in self-defense against another person with a gun has absolutely nothing to do with what most gun owners are talking about when they say they keep a gun for protection...
So why do "they" keep a gun for protection if not to protect themselves from other people with guns?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
... A study looking at whether or not a city gun owner successfully used their gun in self-defense against another person with a gun has absolutely nothing to do with what most gun owners are talking about when they say they keep a gun for protection...
So why do "they" keep a gun for protection if not to protect themselves from other people with guns?
Could it be that urban gun owners don't know what they are talking about? Even with regard to their own guns??
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The NRA has spent a lot of time and money into persuading people in the boondocks who own hunting rifles and the like that gun controls will affect them. That is bollocks. The problem is guns, especially handguns, in towns.
Unfortunately, it's not just the NRA, it's quotes like this:

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:
Anyone touting the merits of Australian-styled gun laws is talking about bans and confiscation. Everyone knows it, so just say it, and quit being chicken-shit about it.
I'll say it--ban handguns and rifles with detachable magazines (you're not allowed to use them for hunting anyway, in most states). Repeal the 2nd Amendment if that's what it takes. It'll take a while to actually confiscate all of them, and it might get ugly, because the gun nuts don't really believe in democracy or the rule of law anyway, but that's no reason not to get started.
The right in this country uses gun control the way the left uses abortion: any restriction (no matter how seemingly sensible) becomes an excuse to whip up paranoia that this is the first step on the slippery slope towards confiscating and eliminating all guns or outlawing abortion.

shrug It's the rhetorical atmosphere people seem to want.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
... A study looking at whether or not a city gun owner successfully used their gun in self-defense against another person with a gun has absolutely nothing to do with what most gun owners are talking about when they say they keep a gun for protection...
So why do "they" keep a gun for protection if not to protect themselves from other people with guns?
Most gun owners do not live in cities.

But I suspect that your phrasing means the question is completely disingenuous. I would think common sense would indicate that most people know that if they get into a conflict with another gun owner, it's unlikely to end well for either of them.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
... A study looking at whether or not a city gun owner successfully used their gun in self-defense against another person with a gun has absolutely nothing to do with what most gun owners are talking about when they say they keep a gun for protection...
So why do "they" keep a gun for protection if not to protect themselves from other people with guns?
Most gun owners do not live in cities.
OK then. Ban them in cities, apart from shooting clubs.
quote:

But I suspect that your phrasing means the question is completely disingenuous.

Don't try to read my mind. You do this way too often and you expect others to read yours too. but that is another problem which is entirely yours.
quote:

I would think common sense would indicate that most people know that if they get into a conflict with another gun owner, it's unlikely to end well for either of them.
It would be a damn sight better if they didn't get into a "conflict" at all. Don't you people do anger management? All guns do is raise the stakes from a fat lip to a funeral.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re city vs. rural:

The Ruby Ridge incident (Wikipedia) is one reason rural folk worry about the gov't taking their guns. Law enforcement officers did a spectacularly horrendous job--including shooting and killing a woman with a baby in her arms.

I just skimmed through the article. I'd forgotten a lot. But there's also a lot that wasn't in the original news coverage. If you mix the siege on the Branch Davidians in Waco, TX; the total disconnect between intelligence agencies before 9/11; and all the bungling and callousness in the Feds' handling of Hurricane Katrina; then focus that on one farm in Idaho...well, the Feds pretty much poured a super-tanker of gasoline on the militia movement. And disgusted and scared the heck out of all sorts of other people.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
common sense
This phrase comes up a lot. It seems to have a very different meaning over there.

For example: I'm sitting in a coffee shop, someone comes in carrying a gun. Common sense dictates that get the hell out of there as quickly as possible, and as soon as I'm safe, call the police.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Doc Tor--

Complicating that: in some places, you can openly carry guns if they're unloaded. Except there's no way for a passerby to know whether guns are loaded.

I don't know what the current situation is; but, several years go, there was a big thing in Northern California about that. IIRC, customers were wearing guns into Starbuck's, and a manager tried to stop them. That was a local law, IIRC.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Dave W--

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
(ambles off humming Duelling Banjos.)
Please don't dirty a fun piece of music by associating it with the ideas you were satirizing. Thx.
[Biased]
It may be too late to worry about Duelling Banjos being associated with unpleasant thoughts.
I've made a point of avoiding that movie, and I didn't read the article, due to extremely disturbing things I've heard about it. You just gave me another reason not to see it.

[Angel]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

Most gun owners do not live in cities.
The latest stats I've seen say that only 20% of US citizens live in rural areas. Sure there are degrees of urbanisation, from small town to major city. But here is a link to some recent data. An average population density in urban areas of over 2,000 people per square mile; that's high enough for the exposure to risk argument to have some force.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Doc Tor--

Complicating that: in some places, you can openly carry guns if they're unloaded. Except there's no way for a passerby to know whether guns are loaded.

I don't know what the current situation is; but, several years go, there was a big thing in Northern California about that. IIRC, customers were wearing guns into Starbuck's, and a manager tried to stop them. That was a local law, IIRC.
If I'm in a US coffee shop, and a non-police officer comes in carrying a gun, I'm going to leave. Immediately. If I'm in a restaurant, and I'm half-way through my meal, likewise.

I want to say "What the fuck is wrong with you people?" but that doesn't quite meet the nuance I'm looking for. It's your law makers I need to address.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Doc Tor--

Complicating that: in some places, you can openly carry guns if they're unloaded. Except there's no way for a passerby to know whether guns are loaded.

So why wear it? As a freaking fashion accessory?

I could ask more questions about the kind of people who wear this kind of bling, but I'd also add that the most dangerous gun on earth is an unloaded gun. The guy who taught me to shoot started with that and the Darwin Awards mention a fair few incidents featuring "unloaded" guns.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Sioni Sais--

2010 article on open carry and Starbuck's, etc. (SF Gate)

2014 article about some of the legal wrangling. (LA Times)

And yes, "unloaded" guns can be very dangerous.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
IIRC, customers were wearing guns into Starbuck's, and a manager tried to stop them.
And, surely the manager has every right to tell people if they want to be served in his coffee shop they don't bring a gun inside. What's to stop him? Apart from fear of getting shot, that is.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The right in this country uses gun control the way the left uses abortion: any restriction (no matter how seemingly sensible) becomes an excuse to whip up paranoia that this is the first step on the slippery slope towards confiscating and eliminating all guns or outlawing abortion.

shrug It's the rhetorical atmosphere people seem to want.
This is spot on. The difference IMO is that both sides seek the same end with regard to events like Thursday.

No one wants to see what happened in Oregon.

Pro abortion activists don't have any problem with a million+ abortions each year, and more is fine too.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

I want to say "What the fuck is wrong with you people?" but that doesn't quite meet the nuance I'm looking for. It's your law makers I need to address.
What we need is campaign finance reform and reform of voting regulations. If we could vastly reduce the amount of money it takes to reach elected office, we could have lawmakers who would have to respond to voters' wishes rather than the wishes of those who pay for the campaigns. And if we had automatic voter registration and better regulations guaranteeing access to voting, conservatives would start losing a lot more elections and we'd get better gun laws. Not to mention a host of other societal benefits.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Too long term. No, denigration and hooting is the solution. Politicians can be shamed into acting rightly.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
... A study looking at whether or not a city gun owner successfully used their gun in self-defense against another person with a gun has absolutely nothing to do with what most gun owners are talking about when they say they keep a gun for protection...
So why do "they" keep a gun for protection if not to protect themselves from other people with guns?
Most gun owners do not live in cities.
quote:
OK then. Ban them in cities, apart from shooting clubs.
They did for a long time in a lot of cities. All it meant was that the criminals had guns but the law-abiding citizens didn't. Eventually the Supreme Court overturned DC's handgun ban as unconstitutional.


quote:
quote:
But I suspect that your phrasing means the question is completely disingenuous.

Don't try to read my mind. You do this way too often and you expect others to read yours too. but that is another problem which is entirely yours.
[Confused] Are you Soror Magna? That was a response to her.


quote:
quote:
I would think common sense would indicate that most people know that if they get into a conflict with another gun owner, it's unlikely to end well for either of them.
It would be a damn sight better if they didn't get into a "conflict" at all. Don't you people do anger management? All guns do is raise the stakes from a fat lip to a funeral.
No, they don't teach us anger management. They teach us The Game. And that you can't escape playing the Game. (That's what I was saying about our culture being sick).
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
saysay,

I'll agree with you about our culture being sick. I doubt we'll agree on the cure though.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Too long term. No, denigration and hooting is the solution. Politicians can be shamed into acting rightly.
Bullshit. Alabama is closing the driver's license bureaus in 8 of the 10 counties with the highest concentration of black people and requiring that people show a picture ID to vote. Officials in Oregon are talking about how this is a time to mourn, not a time to discuss gun laws. Politicians are not in general motivated by shame - it doesn't get them re-elected.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Private shame, they can shuck. Public ignominy is what is called for. Like that guy who bought the rights to a drug and then raised the prices by a thousand percent. They need to be publicly hung out to dry, with rotten fruit and the odd dead fish.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
common sense
This phrase comes up a lot. It seems to have a very different meaning over there.

For example: I'm sitting in a coffee shop, someone comes in carrying a gun. Common sense dictates that get the hell out of there as quickly as possible, and as soon as I'm safe, call the police.
Carrying a gun as in carrying it in their hand, or carrying it in a holster?

I agree, if it's in their hand, leaving (or putting some large solid object in between you and the person) is probably the best option.

Otherwise, in many parts of the US, a person with a holstered gun is simply too normal a sight to cause concern. The person could in fact be a police officer or any of another million types of security officer (ours are not always in uniform). Most people will not actually own a holster unless they have an open carry permit, so you're likely just going to annoy the police who have to make sure everything checks out (and that's if you're not in more danger of a trigger-happy cop showing up than the citizen with the gun).

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

Most gun owners do not live in cities.
The latest stats I've seen say that only 20% of US citizens live in rural areas. Sure there are degrees of urbanisation, from small town to major city. But here is a link to some recent data. An average population density in urban areas of over 2,000 people per square mile; that's high enough for the exposure to risk argument to have some force.
As far as I know there are no solid numbers mapping legal gun owners to location. IME part of the breakdown in communication in a lot of gun control debates comes from the fact that a lot of gun owners either live or spend a significant amount of time in rural areas, while a lot of gun control advocates have never and would never fire a gun and don't see why anyone should.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
the fact that a lot of gun owners either live or spend a significant amount of time in rural areas, while a lot of gun control advocates have never and would never fire a gun and don't see why anyone should.
OK, enlighten me. Why does where someone live make a difference? I know a few people who live, or have lived, in rural areas. All but one of them never thought about owning a gun (the exception was someone who shot clay pigeons, an activity he'd been doing before he moved out of town). Most of them felt safer living in the sticks with their nearest neighbour quarter of a mile away than living in town. OK, none of them were/are farmers who had to potentially deal with a fox in the chickens or something similar - but, I bet your "lot of gunowners" aren't farmers either.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
the fact that a lot of gun owners either live or spend a significant amount of time in rural areas, while a lot of gun control advocates have never and would never fire a gun and don't see why anyone should.
Do'h. I quoted the second part 'cos I was going to respond to that as well.

Put me down as someone who "has never and would never fire a gun". That doesn't mean I don't think no one ever should. As I said, I've a friend (OK, technically husband of a friend) who used to shoot clay pigeons. With sensible precautions (ie: lots of space without anyone the otherside of where the pigeons are) perfectly safe activity. A former colleague was from Texas, a farm boy who regularly (ie: about once a month) got out the gun in the night because some varmit was annoying the livestock (I'm not sure if he ever fired at anything, except tin cans to show he was a good enough shot before his dad let him have a gun unsupervised, I got the impression that the light coming on and the dog were enough to scare the varmit off). Hunting (whether deer, grouse or whatever) is an important part of the Scottish rural economy (indeed, now we don't have any natural predators, someone has to keep deer numbers in check). These are all, IMO, perfectly reasonable reasons to have a gun, or possibly two. With the exception of seeing off some varmit in the chickens, I don't see any reason for people to keep guns readily accessible at home or carry them with them. The guy I knew with two shotguns for shooting clay pigeons had them locked in a strong box in the attic, with the ammo in a locked cupboard elsewhere in the house - which didn't stop someone breaking in with the power tools needed to get at them, one of which was later used in a crime (which, incidentally, in the UK meant he lost his license).

"Gun control advocates" are just that, in favour of gun control not an absolute ban on all guns.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Otherwise, in many parts of the US, a person with a holstered gun is simply too normal a sight to cause concern.
Which is a fucking large part of the problem.

Seriously, how is it that you think murderers get access to guns so readily in the US? It's because no-one thinks it's particularly remarkable that someone is walking around with guns, collecting more and more guns, talking about guns, expressing interest in guns, expressing interest in shootings even.

That's one of the reasons this keeps happening in your country far more than in other countries. Because in other countries, if someone's exhibiting that behaviour there's a far higher chance that other people are going to be worried and at the very least raise a concern with the authorities or other people.

It's not a normal sight. It's a freaking bizarre sight. I don't care if you're in a rural community, it's simply not true that people need to walk around with a gun on them. A farmer doesn't need his gun when he's in the local store or cafe, he needs it on his own property. No-one needs a dozen or more guns, they probably need about 3 maximum depending on the how much variety there is in the things they actually need to shoot.

The fact that you've normalised the sight of people with guns is not a good thing, it's a terrible thing. Not being concerned that someone is in possession of a deadly weapon is demented.

[ 03. October 2015, 23:46: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Carrying a gun as in carrying it in their hand, or carrying it in a holster?

I agree, if it's in their hand, leaving (or putting some large solid object in between you and the person) is probably the best option.

Otherwise, in many parts of the US, a person with a holstered gun is simply too normal a sight to cause concern.
Okay, sorry to everyone who is decent and sensible, but:

What the fuck is wrong with you people? How many seconds does it take to fill an empty hand with a gun from a holster? Am I supposed to be able to tell the difference between some John Wayne-wannabee who just might shoot me, and some John Wayne wannabee who's actively thinking of shooting me? Do the less shooty ones wear a different coloured hat for my convenience?

You can fuck right off with that. If they're not wearing an actual badge from an actual accredited arm of government, I'm out of there.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Just to make sure, saysay. You actually concede that the majority of US citizens live in urban areas but now that doesn't matter because they spend time in rural areas? On weekend breaks and vacations presumably. Which means they spend some three quarters of their time in areas of relatively high population density where the majority of citizens own guns.

Doesn't that kind of undermine your rubbishing of the Philidelphia study which provided evidence that gun ownership did not provide the levels of protection generally believed? The point that you disputed so strongly that it wasn't worth conversing about?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
I'm sure everyone in America, on both sides of the debate knows already, but there was more stringent gun control in some frontier towns in the Wild West than there is now. Link here.

Maybe people were less trustworthy then, but somehow I doubt it.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
OK, enlighten me. Why does where someone live make a difference? I know a few people who live, or have lived, in rural areas. All but one of them never thought about owning a gun (the exception was someone who shot clay pigeons, an activity he'd been doing before he moved out of town). Most of them felt safer living in the sticks with their nearest neighbour quarter of a mile away than living in town. OK, none of them were/are farmers who had to potentially deal with a fox in the chickens or something similar - but, I bet your "lot of gunowners" aren't farmers either.
Most of the gun owners I know are either city people with illegal guns for use in criminal activity, or rural gun owners with legal guns for legitimate uses. Legitimate uses include:

1) Food. There are still a lot of hunters in this country who rely heavily on what they kill to eat. When I was a kid it wasn't unusual to see people walking around with a rifle in case they happened upon something that might be good to eat. Greater enforcement of various hunting seasons has cut down on that a lot.

2) Protection from coyote, wolves, bears, rattlesnakes, copperheads, etc. This is mostly why the people I know who frequently carry guns carry them. Shooting bears and coyote is rare (they tend more towards the you-leave-us-alone-we'll-leave-you-alone attitude). Shooting snakes happens more often than you might think. Holstered handguns are easier to carry around in case of emergency than long guns.

3) Protection from other people. The fact of the matter is that there are some evil people in the world. Yes, it is highly unlikely that one of them is just going to happen to pick your property or house to pursue their criminal activity. But if they do and you're in a rural area, if you or one of your neighbors doesn't have a gun, other help is frequently going to be a long time coming.

Once when I was staying with family in West Virginia, a townie shot a cop and ran to the mountain we lived on. We immediately got calls from the neighbors informing us of what was going on and asking if we had enough guns and ammo (we did). Eventually almost every cop in the state arrived but it took a while. Did the guy actually try to break in such that we needed the guns? No. The incident is not going to show up in statistics of home invasions or other crimes that were successfully stopped by the use of a gun. That people who live in cities can't even seem to comprehend why we would want a gun in a situation like that tends to be a barrier to real conversation.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The fact that you've normalised the sight of people with guns is not a good thing, it's a terrible thing. Not being concerned that someone is in possession of a deadly weapon is demented.
You're reading the situation backwards. We haven't normalised the sight; in parts of the US it has simply never become abnormal because our natural predators have never disappeared. In other parts, people see law enforcement officers too frequently to get upset by the sight of a holstered gun.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Okay, sorry to everyone who is decent and sensible, but:

What the fuck is wrong with you people? How many seconds does it take to fill an empty hand with a gun from a holster? Am I supposed to be able to tell the difference between some John Wayne-wannabee who just might shoot me, and some John Wayne wannabee who's actively thinking of shooting me? Do the less shooty ones wear a different coloured hat for my convenience?
No, the less shooty ones tend to be very comfortable with the fact that they are wearing a gun and not reach anywhere near it unless violence seems immanent.

(I just live here).

quote:
You can fuck right off with that. If they're not wearing an actual badge from an actual accredited arm of government, I'm out of there.
With the current stats, I think you might be in more danger of being murdered by someone wearing an actual badge from an actual accredited arm of government. But we're special like that.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Just to make sure, saysay. You actually concede that the majority of US citizens live in urban areas but now that doesn't matter because they spend time in rural areas? On weekend breaks and vacations presumably. Which means they spend some three quarters of their time in areas of relatively high population density where the majority of citizens own guns.
That bears no resemblance to what I am saying. Again, as far as I know there are no actual numbers mapping legal gun owners to locations, but most of the legal gun owners I have known have lived in rural areas, where the risk/ reward ratio for owning a gun is completely different than it is in a densely populated urban area. Those who haven't lived there have spent significant amounts of time there and generally kept their weapons there.

quote:
Doesn't that kind of undermine your rubbishing of the Philidelphia study which provided evidence that gun ownership did not provide the levels of protection generally believed? The point that you disputed so strongly that it wasn't worth conversing about?
It's the game. You don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Most people I know don't seem to have the belief that you think they do, that a gun is necessarily going to keep you from getting shot when you are facing another person with a gun (although it does happen). Rather, that a gun may prove useful protection against a person or predator who does not have a gun (which, given the penalties for using a gun in the commission of another crime, a lot of criminals don't have).
 
Posted by Egeria (# 4517) on :
 
I'm with Alan. Would never own a gun--never dreamed of it.

And saysay's full of shit as usual. The sight of anyone (other than a police officer) with a gun is not normal. And if I were in a coffee house or other public place and some civilian came in with a gun, I would leave immediately and would call the police.

Crap about "civil war" was one of the bullshit justifications wackos used to arm themselves in the seventies, when idiot assholes were running around predicting a) a communist invasion or revolution, b) a military coup, c) civil war or d) just a total societal breakdown. I still occasionally read nonsense about how we were teetering on the brink of civil war. And I think those paranoid fantasies have contributed to the incidence of gun-related deaths we see today.

One of my coworkers was shot to death on busy street in 1981. The murderer was a sixteen-year-old. How did he get that gun? Quite possibly from his older accomplice; maybe that useless asshole bought it legally. Or maybe the murderer stole it; he'd already been convicted of burglary twice (and immediately after being released from his second stay with the California Youth Authority, he raped a twelve-year-old girl). When a lot of dumbass citizens own handguns "for protection," it's that much easier for a criminal to get his hands on one.

And a family member, not yet thirty, lost his life when an argument got out of control in a house where there was a perfectly legal collection of historic (and unfortunately functioning) guns. What about that man's two little boys? He was trying to get custody of them because his ex's new boyfriend was not only dumb as a post, he was physically abusive. The death condemned those boys to grow up with a stupid mother and a stupid, violent stepfather. What about his parents' heartbreak and the pain that washed over the entire extended family? What about the man who actually pulled the trigger--not a criminal or a violent loser, just an ordinary decent guy who was provoked into losing his temper and had the means at hand to do such an awful thing before he'd had time to think.

Consider then a basketball team with thirteen players. Of those young women, three had lost members of their immediate families to guns. One woman's father had been mistaken for an armed robber by a trigger-happy police officer. One woman's father, a community leader and anti-violence activist, had been murdered outside the gymnasium where his daughter's high school team was playing. One woman's brother was killed while attending a party (possibly a mistaken identity shooting--I don't know if anyone was ever arrested in that one).

It's pretty simple. Fewer handguns around, fewer fatalities. To say that well, a really determined sociopath will find weapons anyway, so it's useless to frame new regulations, is on a par with leaving your house unlocked on the grounds that a really determined burglar will find his way in. And there's no reason at all for any civilian anywhere to be able to get his hands on an assault weapon. To say that "stuff happens"--that's typical for a stupid, corrupt, callous idiot (ie a Republican).
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
IIRC, customers were wearing guns into Starbuck's, and a manager tried to stop them.
And, surely the manager has every right to tell people if they want to be served in his coffee shop they don't bring a gun inside. What's to stop him? Apart from fear of getting shot, that is.
IIRC, the law, unfortunately.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:
The sight of anyone (other than a police officer) with a gun is not normal. And if I were in a coffee house or other public place and some civilian came in with a gun, I would leave immediately. . . .
It's very upsetting. Here in Bigotland . . . oops, I mean Arizona . . . you do see people carrying guns in various places. I give them as wide a berth as I can. Some shops have "no guns allowed" policies. I stopped shopping at a certain supermarket chain because they refused to implement such a policy.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I think it is deliberate menacing. I think the message sent by flamboyant open carry is "If we don't get our way, we will use them."
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:
saysay's full of shit as usual.
Must be a month with a vowel.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:
... The sight of anyone (other than a police officer) with a gun is not normal ...
Where I grew up, the sight of a police officer with a gun wasn't normal either; when I moved to Northern Ireland, where the police quite justifiably carry guns, I found it more than somewhat alarming.

The idea of civilians carrying guns into supermarkets and coffee-shops as a matter of course is completely anathema to me - what the hell do they need them for?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:
... The sight of anyone (other than a police officer) with a gun is not normal ...
Where I grew up, the sight of a police officer with a gun wasn't normal either; when I moved to Northern Ireland, where the police quite justifiably carry guns, I found it more than somewhat alarming.

The idea of civilians carrying guns into supermarkets and coffee-shops as a matter of course is completely anathema to me - what the hell do they need them for?
To protect themselves against librulls and mooslims and illegal immygrunts.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I think what say-say said about gun ownership and open carry being normal in some places is right, actually. Not that it *should* be, but it is. And as she pointed out, she just lives here. I don't think she's advocating it, just reporting on what she's encountered.

The household in which I grew up was mind-bogglingly stupid about guns. Rifles leaned against the wall at the front of a frequently-used clothes closet, ammunition right by them. Don't know if they were loaded. I, as a little kid, frequently had to move them to get stuff stored there. They'd been used in the past for hunting and target shooting; but, at that time, they were there for a sense of safety. (Not rural, but not properly urban, either.) Fortunately, I wasn't inclined to play with them. But there'd been gun-safety promos on TV, and I knew this wasn't a good situation, and some younger kids were going to be visiting. So I explained to the grownups what the promos had said--and they were dramatically shocked and stunned. It honestly had never occurred to them that it was dangerous. The guns were moved to the back of the closet for the visit. IIRC, they might have been moved back to their usual "home" afterwards.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
IIRC, customers were wearing guns into Starbuck's, and a manager tried to stop them.
And, surely the manager has every right to tell people if they want to be served in his coffee shop they don't bring a gun inside. What's to stop him? Apart from fear of getting shot, that is.
IIRC, the law, unfortunately.
So, the law says it's illegal to refuse to serve someone because they're carrying a gun. But, it's perfectly fine to refuse to bake them a cake if you don't like the man they're going to marry. Right ... yeah, I suppose that makes sense to some Republicans or someone.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
In a twisted sense, they're both about individual rights/freedoms. People are free to wear guns, and people are free to honor their conscience and not tangentially participate in a same-sex wedding by baking a cake.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Legitimate uses include:

1) Food. There are still a lot of hunters in this country who rely heavily on what they kill to eat.
As I said, I can see hunting as a legitimate use of guns. I don't see why they need to be hanging around at home though. What about an arrangement with the local police station, or some other location that's secure, where you come in on Friday evening to sign out the gun you need for your weekend hunting trip, and a sensible amount of ammo, and sign them all back in on Sunday evening? You still get to hunt your food, but don't have guns around the house where they're liable to shoot someone accidentally or get stolen by someone to use in a crime, or used by a teenager in the house who's decided to take action over the other kids at school who called him names.

And, in a civilised society, people shouldn't be in a position where not killing an animal that crosses their road leads no dinner on the table.

quote:
2) Protection from coyote, wolves, bears, rattlesnakes, copperheads, etc. This is mostly why the people I know who frequently carry guns carry them.
Yes, might be useful in the back of beyond. But, even rattlesnakes will prefer to be out of sight and out of the way unless you go around poking them.

But, when was the last time there was a venomous snake in your local Starbucks? I'm not counting Congressmen in that, though they probably qualify as venomous snakes.

quote:
3) Protection from other people. The fact of the matter is that there are some evil people in the world.
And the statistics are really in your favour there, aren't they. I know there are studies that may be a decade of two out of date, showing that guns were used for self-defence in less than 0.5% of all crimes - and in half those cases the gun was used by a cop. On the other hand, to provide a gun that is almost never going to be used in self defence means a substantial risk of an accidental injury (to yourself or someone else) or for the gun itself to be the item stolen.

You yourself noted that the majority of criminals don't carry guns. If a burglar breaks into my home armed with nothing more than the screwdriver
he used to force the backdoor, it makes little sense to have a gun lying around that he can then arm himself with - and subsequently sell onto a more dangerous criminal because it's easy money.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
In a twisted sense, they're both about individual rights/freedoms. People are free to wear guns, and people are free to honor their conscience and not tangentially participate in a same-sex wedding by baking a cake.
Yeah, but the manager of the local coffee shop isn't free to refuse admission to someone carrying a gun.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Carrying a gun as in carrying it in their hand, or carrying it in a holster?

I agree, if it's in their hand, leaving (or putting some large solid object in between you and the person) is probably the best option.

Otherwise, in many parts of the US, a person with a holstered gun is simply too normal a sight to cause concern.
Okay, sorry to everyone who is decent and sensible, but:

What the fuck is wrong with you people? How many seconds does it take to fill an empty hand with a gun from a holster? Am I supposed to be able to tell the difference between some John Wayne-wannabee who just might shoot me, and some John Wayne wannabee who's actively thinking of shooting me? Do the less shooty ones wear a different coloured hat for my convenience?

You can fuck right off with that. If they're not wearing an actual badge from an actual accredited arm of government, I'm out of there.
I don't know what Smoky Mountain first person shooter game saysay lives in, but if I saw a person without law enforcement/ security attire with a holstered gun in a public place, that would freak me right the fuck out. And I would move far away from them.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Personally, I find people in law enforcement uniforms carrying firearms disturbing. I'd feel safer not seeing any cops.

Though, my only experience of armed police has been in the US, and a couple of times around UK airports. Most civilised countries manage just fine without their police officers routinely carrying anything more offensive than a truncheon.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Personally, I find people in law enforcement uniforms carrying firearms disturbing. I'd feel safer not seeing any cops.
Ditto.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Most civilised countries manage just fine without their police officers routinely carrying anything more offensive than a truncheon.
Yes.

Having the police armed makes the criminals more likely to arm themselves. A vicious downward spiral.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
If the number of deaths in the USA currently caused by guns were caused by a disease, heaven and Earth would be being moved to eradicate it.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
No, the less shooty ones tend to be very comfortable with the fact that they are wearing a gun and not reach anywhere near it unless violence seems immanent.
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

The coffee shop. Exactly the place where you're going to find a deadly rattlesnake. Leave the fucking gun in the car. Hell, even Atticus Finch had to go indoors to get his rifle.

Also, your police officers are on course for killing 1000 people this year. Your homicide by firearm rate is an order of magnitude greater. Yes, there's a problem with them. The bigger problem is the fuckhead civilians with guns.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Leave the fucking gun in the car.
To be stolen by a passing criminal.

Leave it at home in a very well locked cabinet.

Better still, don't have any guns and deal with rattlesnakes another way. I was brought up where snakes lived in the garage, we carried snakebite kits and that was it.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I understand that in the US Up to 100 children a year die from accidental shootings. I wonder how that compares with the number of rattlesnake attacks?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
For some added perspective:

"In gun debate, it's urban vs. rural: In parts of the country, shooting and hunting aren't a way of life. They are life." (USA Today, Feb. 27, 2013)

Study: "Why own a gun? Protection is now top reason"--Section 3: Gun Ownership Trends and Demographics (Pew Research Center, March 12, 2013)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
According to the CDC between 7000-8000 people a year are bitten by venomous snakes, with about 5 fatalities.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
the fact that a lot of gun owners either live or spend a significant amount of time in rural areas, while a lot of gun control advocates have never and would never fire a gun and don't see why anyone should.
OK, enlighten me. Why does where someone live make a difference? I know a few people who live, or have lived, in rural areas. All but one of them never thought about owning a gun (the exception was someone who shot clay pigeons, an activity he'd been doing before he moved out of town). Most of them felt safer living in the sticks with their nearest neighbour quarter of a mile away than living in town. OK, none of them were/are farmers who had to potentially deal with a fox in the chickens or something similar - but, I bet your "lot of gunowners" aren't farmers either.
Hang on. I am UK based and grew around guns. We have always had guns at home, rifles for shooting game, mostly pheasant, but my father has shot deer with the same rifle (to kill a badly poached deer that was injured and walking around with gangrene). My father shoots for the pot, as part of a shooting syndicate and has been asked to do some vermin control by local farmers (ferrets gone feral, mink).

I remember, back before Hungerford, guns just lived in the cloakroom, propped up with the coats (the ammunition was locked away). My best school friend was a farmer's daughter and her brother was into shooting, and again we were casually clay pigeon shooting with no controls when I was a teenager. Just set the trap up in a convenient field and played around. That one I would have liked more time to try rather than the few goes I got before we drifted off to do something else.

The UK has progressively increased the protections around guns. Hungerford banned the ownership of semi-automatic weapons by individuals. Dunblane banned the home ownership of handguns. Dunblane meant that my friends who competition shoot had to find different ways of storing the handguns for range shooting. These are members of Bisley and members of the Olympic teams. One of my friends was until recently a member of the GB 300m squad.

These days, to continue owning a rifle to hunt game, the licensing is far more rigorous. It requires medical certificates, police checks to check that the gun is locked in a proper gun cabinet with the ammunition locked away somewhere else. That there are signed agreements from the local farmers and other members of the shooting syndicate to agree that this is what the gun is used for. And the police check all of this before issuing a gun licence. (I haven't been forever, but I suspect the gun now has to be locked away while being transported.)

And yes, I have shot handguns on a shooting range - I'm crap at that one. I'm not so bad with a rifle, but don't get the time or practice to want to push it.

But this has been progressive following shooting incidents. We started with casual ownership of guns in the UK.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Hang on.
Hang on yourself. So, you know different people from me. So what? What's wrong with my statement that the people I know who live/have lived in the countryside don't automatically long for the opportunity to fill their home up with guns? I don't know the statistics for the UK, but the impression from what I've seen of shooting estates in Scotland is that the majority of people coming to shoot a deer or a brace of grouse are not locals, and probably live in urban areas.

Hence, my conclusion that a) the desire to fire guns is not restricted to those who live in the countryside but includes a lot of townies and b) that not everyone in the countryside wants to have a gun. For the UK, of course. I was asking if it's so vastly different in the US. I can't believe it is. If only because the oft repeated "on average one privately owned gun per citizen" suggests that either everyone in the countryside owns hundreds of guns, or that a lot of those guns are owned by people living in towns.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Alan, I was pointing out you were making sweeping generalisations based on your experiences, and not everyone's were the same. In a post that pointed out that the UK gun laws have become more rigorous, gradually, following shooting incidents.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
No, the less shooty ones tend to be very comfortable with the fact that they are wearing a gun and not reach anywhere near it unless violence seems immanent.
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Um, she didn't say it was good...
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
You probable aren't aware but Paternoster Square, next to St Paul's Cathedral, London, is policed by men carrying semi-automatic weapons. It looks like an inner city US scene when they come barrelling through, dropped off in an armoured van. Somewhere I have a photo.

We also have a lot of illegal guns floating around in gang culture in the UK. Better laws in the US would help us too. Most teenagers I know, and I work in the same sort of areas that Kelly does, but in the UK, and with teenagers, lust after guns, some have even handled them. Think Kidulthood. The law makes unlicensed gun ownership illegal. Guns are removed if found and the perpertrators charged with firearms offences. Mostly the kids carry knives, which are equally capable of killing. But we aren't so far off some of these situations in the inner cities in the UK.

We have the same attitudes of individualism and having to teach young people to socialise and work co-operatively. And some of the same problems of different treatments for black and mixed race or Asian teenagers, and a feeling of being picked on.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Sweeping generalisations? I was trying to address a sweeping generalisation (specifically "the fact that a lot of gun owners either live or spend a significant amount of time in rural areas") with the best of my knowledge which is that out a small sample of people in the UK who live in the country (those I know) I only know one person who has ever owned a gun - and he'd done so as a townie anyway - and the others have never to my knowledge expressed any desire to own a gun. My conclusion: that (in the UK) that sweeping generalisation is not true, and probably wouldn't be true if our gun control laws were less severe than they are.

Of course, it's a small sample. And, it's a sample limited to parts of Scotland and Northern England. And, it's in the context of gun control which means people are not exposed to guns regularly so may not develop a need to have a gun. And, it's in the context of a nation not obsessed with guns, so even if someone felt a gun would be useful they may not express that.

Is that a sufficient number of caveats to convince you that I never intended to make any sort of generalisation, but address the fucking stupid generalisation saysay had produced by giving counter evidence from the UK and asking if things are that different in the US. Have I satisfied your desire for properly expressed arguments in Hell?

Now, do you have anything Hellish to say about a culture which has resulted in more US citizens being killed by people with guns in the last 50 years than the total number of US soldiers killed in every war fought since a group of colonists decided they didn't like the British King and ditched some tea into Boston Harbour?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Alan, I have two points to make about the gun culture.

  1. Gun culture in the UK has changed recently, in the wake of disasters. Guns were casually owned in the UK, similarly to that of some of the US, until recently. I can remember going to country fairs and half the men were there with rifles carried broken over their arms.
  2. Secondly, inner city London isn't as far from the US as you fondly imagine.

I have worse stories of WW1 and WW2 guns still being stored casually in homes. Found when the houses were cleared when the old person died. I am remembering a Sten gun here, and a few other things.

[ 04. October 2015, 09:29: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Alan--

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Hang on.
Hang on yourself. So, you know different people from me. So what? What's wrong with my statement that the people I know who live/have lived in the countryside don't automatically long for the opportunity to fill their home up with guns? I don't know the statistics for the UK, but the impression from what I've seen of shooting estates in Scotland is that the majority of people coming to shoot a deer or a brace of grouse are not locals, and probably live in urban areas.

Hence, my conclusion that a) the desire to fire guns is not restricted to those who live in the countryside but includes a lot of townies and b) that not everyone in the countryside wants to have a gun. For the UK, of course. I was asking if it's so vastly different in the US. I can't believe it is. If only because the oft repeated "on average one privately owned gun per citizen" suggests that either everyone in the countryside owns hundreds of guns, or that a lot of those guns are owned by people living in towns.
I may be wrong, but I suspect that a shooting estate in the UK is very different from everyday life in rural America.

And wasn't there once a tradition in the UK to have the family weapons displayed/ready over the fireplace? Or was that a rare thing??

Oh, and where did you pick up that one gun per citizen idea, please??

BTW, I saw something on PBS about the ancestral home for a particular Scottish clan, still lived in and maintained by the chieftain and his wife. They had a jaw-dropping display of weaponry, and I thought at the time that there was quite enough there to start a real revolution. I'm not saying that's the same as an American farmer having a bunch of guns...but maybe there's something of the same impulse?

I'm not saying the US obsession with guns is at all good. But, as someone else pointed out, it isn't unique to us. And we sure didn't invent a fascination/obsession with weaponry.

[Angel]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I may be wrong, but I suspect that a shooting estate in the UK is very different from everyday life in rural America.
Yes, of course it is. Of course, so is most of the UKs countryside - with the exception of the moors of northern England, Wales and Scotland our countryside is almost exclusively farmed. Our only semi-wilderness areas are also those shooting estates ...

quote:
And wasn't there once a tradition in the UK to have the family weapons displayed/ready over the fireplace? Or was that a rare thing??
Yes, as has been pointed out, the UK was much more relaxed about guns in the past. I don't know about over the fireplace, but display cabinets for hunting rifles or a rack for the shotgun by the door (or, just propped in the corner) would be normal for those who owned guns. But, things have changed considerably.

quote:
Oh, and where did you pick up that one gun per citizen idea, please??
Well, according to Wikipedia it's only 0.88 (in 2014). What's 12% among friends? Almost one gun per citizen.

quote:
BTW, I saw something on PBS about the ancestral home for a particular Scottish clan, still lived in and maintained by the chieftain and his wife. They had a jaw-dropping display of weaponry, and I thought at the time that there was quite enough there to start a real revolution. I'm not saying that's the same as an American farmer having a bunch of guns...but maybe there's something of the same impulse?
Although, the armoury of a clan chief wouldn't be exclusively for personal use. That would also be the stock of arms he'd hand out to the clan if they needed to go to war. Certainly before the 18th century reform of the clan system the men of the clan effectively formed a militia (whether it was 'well organised' is another matter), not all of whom would have had their own weapons.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Golden Key, I'm not talking shooting estates. I've never lived or stayed on a shooting estate. That's a different thing entirely.

I am talking about ordinary farms and village houses, in Northamptonshire, for growing up as a teenager.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re display of weapons over the fireplace, and at the clan home:

I wasn't just thinking of guns. More of swords, battle axes, etc.

I think there were few, if any, guns in the clan armory.

I should've been more specific. There's a fascination with weapons that goes far farther back than guns.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
CK--

I know. Alan was the one who mentioned shooting estates.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re display of weapons over the fireplace, and at the clan home:

I wasn't just thinking of guns. More of swords, battle axes, etc.

I think there were few, if any, guns in the clan armory.

I should've been more specific. There's a fascination with weapons that goes far farther back than guns.
Well, displays of weapons were also for political reasons as much as anything else. A big display showed any visitors "look how many men I can provide with top quality weapons". Getting someone to think twice about tangling with you before meeting on the battlefield is good all around.

The main weapon of the Scottish clans was the claymore (muckle great sword). In close combat far more effective than a musket (which at that point is not much more than a club). By the time there was widespread use of rifles the clan system, and indeed the feudal system in England, was breaking down and the regular army was doing all the fighting rather than local militia - and, especially in the Highlands, militia more likely to fight each other than any threat from outside the country.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Actually, the claymore was very expensive and only Highland 'officers' could afford them.

It's estimated that only around 1 in 8 of Bonny Prince Charlie's army - at its height - had the traditional claymore, targe (shield) and dirk. The rest were armed with farm implements or with French muskets when a shipment arrived.

After Culloden, Cumberland estimated that some 2,000 swords were collected from the field. That was a higher proportion than 1 in 8 - but still indicates that most of the Jacobites weren't wielding claymores. Recent battlefield archaeology has revealed that the rebels fired off far more musket and pistol rounds than had previously been thought ... but somewhat ineffectively because they were all bunched together in a mass and not arrayed in ranks like the government troops in order to provide mass volleyed fire.

Only the first two or three frontline men on the rebel side could actually fire their muskets or pistols without the danger of shooting their own comrades.

Anyhow - as has been said, weaponry tended to have a status value in the Scottish Highlands and most of the peasant farmers would have been unarmed. There was a clampdown on privately owned arms across the region after the 1715 rebellion - so there wouldn't have been a huge amount of hardware available in 1745.

Even at the time of the English Civil War, the first major engagement at Edge Hill saw an entire Welsh regiment on the royalist side armed only with farm implements.

County armouries were generally pretty sparse - because of the cost of maintenance. Nobody wanted to pay for the upkeep.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
In a twisted sense, they're both about individual rights/freedoms. People are free to wear guns, and people are free to honor their conscience and not tangentially participate in a same-sex wedding by baking a cake.
Another take on "individual freedom" -- you need to watch to the very end to see why I'm posting this on this thread.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I grew up in the countryside, in the 70s and 80s. I knew members of the minor aristocracy, and members of the farming community, and members of the hunt. I went to school with them and their children.

The first time I fired a gun was at (my 2nd) university, in a three-way competition between the Clay Pigeon, Target Shooting and Archery clubs.

The idea that the 'countryside' has guns and thinks nothing particular of it isn't true. In my day, a few people had them, and the great majority didn't. (The local hunt could fuck right off too. The only reason they could continue to do what they did was because two people owned all the land, and wanted it to. Many were entirely ambivalent, and many more against.)
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
America is addicted to guns, Addictions are notoriously hard to break. Meanwhile, the death toll keeps rising.

[Tear]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Very few people in the countryside have guns now. It has become far less common than it was even when I was growing up. My point is that we have changed from the situation when farmers often did have guns. Walking in the wrong place, or even in the right place, it wasn't uncommon to be accosted by a farmer with a gun on his arm when I was a child and teenager. Nowadays guns are rare and carefully locked away when not in use.

We did it gradually, stage by stage. As we saw the need arise. First the automatic weapons, then the hand guns. But where I am now, in countryside just outside London, I have heard of kids handling illegal guns both in this local environment and in the inner city. (Damn difficult to act on hearsay, however convincing.)

(I probably first shot a gun at 13 or 14, clay shooting. Did a lot more beating before that. The shooting range and handguns was at university.)
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I did clay shooting too as a teenager. My grandfather hunted. However, his rifle was registered, he needed to go through physical and mental checks every few years to have his licence renewed ... You know, the sensible things.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Actually, the claymore was very expensive and only Highland 'officers' could afford them.
Which is exactly why they're the ones that got put on display to impress visitors.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Addictions are notoriously hard to break. Meanwhile, the death toll keeps rising.
I've seen the odd recent Hollywood offering where gun violence is so graphic I turn it off. But then these youngsters are going to get it off the Net these days anyway.

When you think the West was won by the gun, it's almost as if the Spirits of dead Indians have come back to haunt them. I mean something is possessing these killer kids, and I just don,t buy all the banging on about mental illness.

If America really wants to change it's culture then it will take something more massive even than prohibition, (not forgetting of course that the 1920s alcohol ban failed totally).
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
(not forgetting of course that the 1920s alcohol ban failed totally).
Not true. We had a thread some time back about someone's kid (and I mean like 15 or 16) who fell into a ditch in a drunken stupor on the way back from a party and slept it off all night in the ditch. The Brits were all, "ah, childhood memories" and the Americans were horrified. There would appear to be a casual attitude toward drunkenness, I think, in the UK that has gone from the US.

It also gave rise to the root beer industry which produced some really good sasparilla-based soft drinks.

Of course Prohibition also produced or greatly enhanced our organized crime scene, so it's a mixed blessing to be sure.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Alan, I was pointing out you were making sweeping generalisations based on your experiences, and not everyone's were the same. In a post that pointed out that the UK gun laws have become more rigorous, gradually, following shooting incidents.
Alan's comment made me fervently wish that the next generations of kids in the US will be able to say the same thing about law enforcement with no weapons.

As for rattlesnakes-- there are these things called sticks. Big fat sticks for whacking things. Snakes existed a long time before guns did, have been managing just fine without them, and no weapon in the world is going to replace a lack of vigilance, anyway.

I think the big elephant in the room is mass media-- how do we convince ourselves that weapons are sexy, anyway? Well, that's easy-- every definitive "alpha" celebrated by movies and tv waves a gun around. The same people who sniff about gun control cheer when Indiana Jones plugs the guy with the saber.

Eyerolls to commence, but another front line story-- the place I am working at is in the nexus of high gang activity. That might be a lesser problem to the fact that there is also a high number of overworked parents letting the TV be the babysitter, or letting kids stay up way too late to watch shows kids have no business watching just to have some semblace of family time after their 14 hour day. ( All of these kids are Walking Dead fans. Jesus.)

At the start of the year, we had the worst problem arising from simple "gun play" escalating into real, physical punching and kicking and clawing. Because TV rules are, you don't stop the fight until the bad guy can't get up. If you are not the clear victor, you must be the bad guy. It was so bad that a couple of kids literally did not know how to enter a group playing anything-- building sand castles, blocks, water play-- without knocking someone's building over or or just slapping them in the face. It was more than just normal impulse control problems, it was like these kids honestly didn't see any way to engage with others that didn't involve a fight.

So, this was a " modest proposal" I thought up, because I really do wonder what would happen on the kid level if we pulled this off. Let's say people in the UK got organized enough to ask the EU (?) to issue this statement.

quote:
We, the undersigned representatives of the UK stand in solidarity with the more than 10,000 US victims of gun violence per year. We abhor the gun culture that poisons the US and enslaves its citizens, and we reject American mass media's atrempt to promote such culture, by normalizing and celebrating gun violence. To that end, we encourage the citizens of our own country to boycott movies and television in which gun violence is glorified, or is used as the primary solution to conflict. We also encourage them to immediately cease purchasing any merchandise related to such media.

We ask the citizens of the countries undersigned to commit to three years of said boycott, and we heartily encourage like minded Americans to participate.
To ( ironically) quote Quentin Tarantino, people don't listen till you start fucking with their paycheck. If by some miracle a campaign like this worked, I bet even Jerry Bruckheimer would suddenly become a flower sniffing hippie.

And my bet is, by year three, American teachers would start seeing a difference in the classroom. Maybe not a complete turnaround, but a difference.

People hear stories before they hear facts. Much cerebral reasoning can be undone by sitting someone down to watch " The Purge" Why is it we can spend all this time expressing mystification about US gun culture without holding Hollywood's feet to the fire, at least a little? They make a good deal of money off of American collective fear.

It would be a hard row to hoe, though, because the entity we would be confronting would also have the biggest tools for shutting us up.

[ 04. October 2015, 16:32: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Kelly, you probably didn't read all my links, but one of them was to a story from last month, describing how our inner city London gangs are tooling themselves up by mail order guns from the States.

We need to sign a letter that doesn't just ask that guns aren't glorified in films and TV, but also that guns aren't posted to our gangs (who get their mores for the same films and TV that your guys do).

[ 04. October 2015, 16:43: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
That, too, but I guess I kind of thought that was obvious. And I was wondering about how gun culture is spreading to the UK. That one comedy a while back featuring Brit cops with guns really made me uneasy.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
We have always had a bit of criminal gun culture.


Guns aren't normally carried by the police. For gun use they have to be signed out with special licensed police marksmen, and an investigation if anyone is shot. However, the one thing that scared me badly this summer was seeing a patrol in Paternoster Square, next to St Paul's Cathedral, armed with automatic weapons, openly cradled in their arms and holstered. I am not sure if they were a private company, like G4S, but it was heavy armament for the UK. Paternoster Square is a private shopping and business area. The guys were dropped at one side, barrelled through and were picked up the other side by the same armoured van.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
an investigation if anyone is shot.
An investigation if the gun is even fired. Every bullet has to be accounted for.

quote:
However, the one thing that scared me badly this summer was seeing a patrol in Paternoster Square, next to St Paul's Cathedral, armed with automatic weapons, openly cradled in their arms and holstered. I am not sure if they were a private company, like G4S, but it was heavy armament for the UK. Paternoster Square is a private shopping and business area. The guys were dropped at one side, barrelled through and were picked up the other side by the same armoured van.
I'm guessing City of London police. They wouldn't have been a private company, because that would have been massively and definitively illegal.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
an investigation if anyone is shot.
An investigation if the gun is even fired. Every bullet has to be accounted for.
Although accountability is questionable. Most departments have only internal accountability, and the Blue Wall is a thing.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
an investigation if anyone is shot.
An investigation if the gun is even fired. Every bullet has to be accounted for.
Although accountability is questionable. Most departments have only internal accountability, and the Blue Wall is a thing.
It is, but every single police use of a firearm is reported and investigated automatically to an independent organisation, the IPCC. There are inevitable arguments about their actual independence and their methodology, some of which are well-founded. Reform is probably long-overdue.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
This is what we don't have. Cops usually do internal investigation of shootings in the US.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
This is what we don't have. Cops usually do internal investigation of shootings in the US.
Wish I'd said that. [Razz]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
... And in case you didn't know, the Blue Wall is a thing.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
... And in case you didn't know, the Blue Wall is a thing.
Don't push it, woman. [Axe murder]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If only because the oft repeated "on average one privately owned gun per citizen" suggests that either everyone in the countryside owns hundreds of guns, or that a lot of those guns are owned by people living in towns.
Most people who own guns own several. Some are family heirlooms, some have different uses. If you hunt, it's certainly not unreasonable to own three or four rifles and a couple of shotguns per person in your household: each gun has a different use. If you carry a handgun for self-defense, you probably have three or so (something small to conceal in summer clothing, or in a small evening bag; something with more stopping power as a normal carry weapon, and a large .45 or something.

If you told me that the average US gun owner owned 10 guns, I wouldn't be surprised. A hundred would be unusual.

(I certainly know a few people in suburbia with guns. They get used once or twice a year, maybe.)
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We had a thread some time back about someone's kid (and I mean like 15 or 16) who fell into a ditch in a drunken stupor on the way back from a party and slept it off all night in the ditch. The Brits were all, "ah, childhood memories" and the Americans were horrified. There would appear to be a casual attitude toward drunkenness, I think, in the UK that has gone from the US.
Passing out drunk in a ditch (or worse) seems to be pretty much par for the course at college frat parties. The main difference is that Americans tend to be a couple of years older when they go through their stupid-with-alcohol phase.

(I'd believe that Brits drank more, on average, and that there were more young American adults who either didn't drink or drunk very little, but I seem to find a pretty casual attitude towards drunkenness wherever college kids gather together.)
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
IIRC, customers were wearing guns into Starbuck's, and a manager tried to stop them.
And, surely the manager has every right to tell people if they want to be served in his coffee shop they don't bring a gun inside. What's to stop him? Apart from fear of getting shot, that is.
IIRC, the law, unfortunately.
While I appreciate that you have noted that I'm describing what is the culture in parts of the US rather than what it should be, I believe you're mistaken on the law in this instance. Businesses can refuse to bake cakes for same-sex weddings only if they're willing to shell out huge amounts of money in legal fees and penalties. OTOH, there's nothing stopping them from refusing service to people wearing guns, and more than there's anyone telling them to take down their 'no shoes, no shirt, no service' signs.

That more businesses don't do so is a symptom of the culture war.


quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Legitimate uses include:

1) Food. There are still a lot of hunters in this country who rely heavily on what they kill to eat.
As I said, I can see hunting as a legitimate use of guns. I don't see why they need to be hanging around at home though. What about an arrangement with the local police station, or some other location that's secure, where you come in on Friday evening to sign out the gun you need for your weekend hunting trip, and a sensible amount of ammo, and sign them all back in on Sunday evening? You still get to hunt your food, but don't have guns around the house where they're liable to shoot someone accidentally or get stolen by someone to use in a crime, or used by a teenager in the house who's decided to take action over the other kids at school who called him names.

And, in a civilised society, people shouldn't be in a position where not killing an animal that crosses their road leads no dinner on the table.
Who said the US was a civilised society?

Most of the legal gun owners I know do in fact store their guns unloaded in locked boxes separate from their ammunition. Most of them agree that in an urban or suburban setting it makes little sense to keep a gun, and few of them do so (the ones that own them store them in a rural location where they will be likely to use them; most of the exceptions I know are people working some type of security). Because the risk/reward ratio (the chances that the gun will be stolen, that a child will get their hands on it, or that even if used legitimately an innocent bystander will be struck instead of the target vs. the chances that they’ll use the gun for a legitimate purpose) is so skewed.

But if you seriously think that people storing their guns and ammo at a police station where they have to be signed out for a weekend hunting trip is a reasonable suggestion, then, yes, I’m going to suggest that the cultural differences between the US and UK are significant enough that communication (much less agreement on what constitute reasonable gun laws) may not be possible. Because I don’t even know where to start addressing the problems in that statement.

In the US, people who hunt for their food don’t generally have 9-5 jobs during the week such that they would make a weekend hunting trip. Nor do they necessarily have a lot of extra money for the gas it would take to make the hour plus round trip to the nearest police station.

And you obviously don’t understand a lot of Americans’ relationship to their government. The government (and people’s fear of it) is the reason that some people own guns. I live in Baltimore (you may have heard about our recent unrest that included rioting and the national guard and cops from neighboring states being called in). From the point of view of most people on the ground, the government set that situation up by taking an unbelievable rumor to be a credible threat, and then shutting down transportation at a major hub just as school was letting out thus forcing a bunch of adolescents (not known for their maturity) into a situation where police in riot gear were ordering them to do something (leave the area) that they were literally unable to do. Given the history, getting people to believe that the government isn’t deliberately trying to hurt them is a challenge. Convincing them that the government or its agents are really working in their best interest is impossible.

In the US we’ve had years of experience of zero tolerance policies in the schools. Mostly it has led to a massive school to prison pipeline. Can someone come up with a gun control policy idea that would actually work in the US? Because mostly what I hear is crickets and people bitching about the power of the NRA. But if the NRA wasn’t a factor, if someone could have their perfect gun control policy, what would it be? Timothy the Obscure’s forcible confiscation program?

Actually, you know what, fuck it. Maryland consistently ranks as having some of the best gun laws in the country (as defined by liberals). While I was trying to figure out how to respond a nine-year old girl got shot in broad daylight not far from here. This weekend a 71 yr old man was killed in a shopping center and a 9 yr old girl was shot, both in broad daylight.

This shit isn’t going to get solved by secular liberals setting a minimal standard of behavior and having law enforcement use violence to enforce it.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Most people who own guns own several. Some are family heirlooms, some have different uses. If you hunt, it's certainly not unreasonable to own three or four rifles and a couple of shotguns per person in your household: each gun has a different use. If you carry a handgun for self-defense, you probably have three or so (something small to conceal in summer clothing, or in a small evening bag; something with more stopping power as a normal carry weapon, and a large .45 or something.

If you told me that the average US gun owner owned 10 guns, I wouldn't be surprised. A hundred would be unusual.

(I certainly know a few people in suburbia with guns. They get used once or twice a year, maybe.)
Yes. I also wouldn't be surprised if most of the legal gun owners I know own around 10 guns. The only person I know who might own a hundred makes his living restoring old weapons.
 
Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Alan, I was pointing out you were making sweeping generalisations based on your experiences, and not everyone's were the same. In a post that pointed out that the UK gun laws have become more rigorous, gradually, following shooting incidents.
Alan's comment made me fervently wish that the next generations of kids in the US will be able to say the same thing about law enforcement with no weapons.

As for rattlesnakes-- there are these things called sticks. Big fat sticks for whacking things. Snakes existed a long time before guns did, have been managing just fine without them, and no weapon in the world is going to replace a lack of vigilance, anyway.

I think the big elephant in the room is mass media-- how do we convince ourselves that weapons are sexy, anyway? Well, that's easy-- every definitive "alpha" celebrated by movies and tv waves a gun around. The same people who sniff about gun control cheer when Indiana Jones plugs the guy with the saber.

Eyerolls to commence, but another front line story-- the place I am working at is in the nexus of high gang activity. That might be a lesser problem to the fact that there is also a high number of overworked parents letting the TV be the babysitter, or letting kids stay up way too late to watch shows kids have no business watching just to have some semblace of family time after their 14 hour day. ( All of these kids are Walking Dead fans. Jesus.)

At the start of the year, we had the worst problem arising from simple "gun play" escalating into real, physical punching and kicking and clawing. Because TV rules are, you don't stop the fight until the bad guy can't get up. If you are not the clear victor, you must be the bad guy. It was so bad that a couple of kids literally did not know how to enter a group playing anything-- building sand castles, blocks, water play-- without knocking someone's building over or or just slapping them in the face. It was more than just normal impulse control problems, it was like these kids honestly didn't see any way to engage with others that didn't involve a fight.

So, this was a " modest proposal" I thought up, because I really do wonder what would happen on the kid level if we pulled this off. Let's say people in the UK got organized enough to ask the EU (?) to issue this statement.

quote:
We, the undersigned representatives of the UK stand in solidarity with the more than 10,000 US victims of gun violence per year. We abhor the gun culture that poisons the US and enslaves its citizens, and we reject American mass media's atrempt to promote such culture, by normalizing and celebrating gun violence. To that end, we encourage the citizens of our own country to boycott movies and television in which gun violence is glorified, or is used as the primary solution to conflict. We also encourage them to immediately cease purchasing any merchandise related to such media.

We ask the citizens of the countries undersigned to commit to three years of said boycott, and we heartily encourage like minded Americans to participate.
To ( ironically) quote Quentin Tarantino, people don't listen till you start fucking with their paycheck. If by some miracle a campaign like this worked, I bet even Jerry Bruckheimer would suddenly become a flower sniffing hippie.

And my bet is, by year three, American teachers would start seeing a difference in the classroom. Maybe not a complete turnaround, but a difference.

People hear stories before they hear facts. Much cerebral reasoning can be undone by sitting someone down to watch " The Purge" Why is it we can spend all this time expressing mystification about US gun culture without holding Hollywood's feet to the fire, at least a little? They make a good deal of money off of American collective fear.

It would be a hard row to hoe, though, because the entity we would be confronting would also have the biggest tools for shutting us up.
This. I have been thinking that the problem stems from the mass media, and have even challenged year 7 kids with *why* images of people with guns are cool - they really couldn't see that they weren't. If it is like that in Australia, it would be infinitely harder to deal with in the U.S. This idea looks like it could actually work, if we could get enough people on board.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
saysay--

Actually, at the time my first link (posted a little later) talks about, it was very legal to wear your gun into Starbuck's, etc., here in California. So trying to refuse service to them was a problem. The second link discusses the state's legal struggles, back and forth.

Starbuck's itself has been back and forth about it, too, over several years. Web search. Skimming down the page gives an idea of how fraught and confusing the whole thing's been.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
saysay--

Actually, at the time my first link (posted a little later) talks about, it was very legal to wear your gun into Starbuck's, etc., here in California. So trying to refuse service to them was a problem. The second link discusses the state's legal struggles, back and forth.
I understand that it was legal to wear your gun into a Starbucks. I don't have a problem with that. Where I'm from, the manager could refuse them service if they so desired. If they declined to do so, the people who didn't want to see someone with a holstered gun ordering coffee could leave and, if they so desired, boycott Starbucks for their policy.

In fact, I'd like it if people would do that. Boycott Starbucks, choose instead to give your money to a local coffee shop!

I have more of an issue with California lawmakers attempting to change the store policy of a Mass. company which will then affect the abilities of people in WVA to move about freely in accordance with the laws and cultural mores in their state.

OTOH, the feds have made it clear that refusing service to a gay couple on basis of their homosexuality will come with a high price tag.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I understand that it was legal to wear your gun into a Starbucks. I don't have a problem with that.
And I repeat, what the fuck is wrong with you people?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
If I am in a store and see a customer with a gun, I will leave. I will complain to the business owner afterwards. If we all do this, it has to have an effect.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If I am in a store and see a customer with a gun, I will leave. I will complain to the business owner afterwards. If we all do this, it has to have an effect.
In the US the effect in many cases will be the business owner suggesting that you mind your step on the way out.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I don't care. I am the customer. I vote with my dollar.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Who said the US was a civilised society?
Yes, I know. When a country has a culture which means that more of their citizens are killed by guns than have been killed in every war they've ever fought, and this is largely ignored by the government, 'civilised' isn't a word I would use either.

And, if you think my suggestion about storing hunting rifles meant that I'm saying guns should only be stored at a police station and used at weekends then I think you need to read what I wrote more carefully.

The point is that a hunter only needs his guns from the time when he reaches the trail head until he loads his kill in the back of his pickup and heads home. The question is, what does he do with those guns the rest of the time? I'm saying that that needs to be securely stored somewhere - for his own safety to avoid accidents and to reduce the risks of theft, because the main source of guns used in criminal activity is someone stealing them from private individuals. A secure location with 24h manned security close to where he goes hunting is better than a cupboard in his home, a police station is one such location but wouldn't be the only one.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If I am in a store and see a customer with a gun, I will leave. I will complain to the business owner afterwards. If we all do this, it has to have an effect.
In the US the effect in many cases will be the business owner suggesting that you mind your step on the way out.
I'm coming round to the notion that if the pro-gun advocates on the Ship act and speak in real life the way they do here, then I'm not surprised they feel the need to carry a gun. romanlion, that statement of yours reads like a threat.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If I am in a store and see a customer with a gun, I will leave. I will complain to the business owner afterwards. If we all do this, it has to have an effect.
In the US the effect in many cases will be the business owner suggesting that you mind your step on the way out.
I'm coming round to the notion that if the pro-gun advocates on the Ship act and speak in real life the way they do here, then I'm not surprised they feel the need to carry a gun. romanlion, that statement of yours reads like a threat.
I think you're misintepreting it - I believe it's essentially suggesting that if you don't like the situation, you can leave - "Don't let the doorknob hit you on the way out," or (more crudely) "Don't let the doorknob hit ya where the good Lord split ya!"
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Though, in economically trying times a business owner who sends paying customers packing with words to that effect deserves what he gets (which, is likely to be an end to his business). I strongly doubt that there are enough open carry nuts out there to keep him in business if he kicks out all the customers who feel unsafe seeing guns in public.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If I am in a store and see a customer with a gun, I will leave. I will complain to the business owner afterwards. If we all do this, it has to have an effect.
In the US the effect in many cases will be the business owner suggesting that you mind your step on the way out.
I'm coming round to the notion that if the pro-gun advocates on the Ship act and speak in real life the way they do here, then I'm not surprised they feel the need to carry a gun. romanlion, that statement of yours reads like a threat.
It shouldn't.

I'm sure any that would have the reaction I describe would be polite, but they would tell you to pound sand just the same.

Business owners and other gun nuts use guns to save lives, defend property, and stop crimes with regularity. Protests from the one-off recreant will bring a "good riddance" reaction from many of them.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I understand that it was legal to wear your gun into a Starbucks. I don't have a problem with that.
And I repeat, what the fuck is wrong with you people?
I grew up around guns. Fired my first gun when I was seven or eight trying to hit the varmint that were messing up the fields. Was offered a gun of my own when I was eleven, as family tradition held.

I know people (including relatives) who have, at various points in their lives for different reasons, decided to open carry. They have all been not only responsible gun owners but also the type of people who both know the importance of de-escalating conflict and have the skills to do so. They have also known that if they ever need to use their gun, they will likely face fairly severe consequences.

At this point, seeing a civilian openly carrying scares me far less than seeing a cop (who knows he or she can likely use their weapon with impunity).

As I see it, the problem in this country is not with people who grew up around guns knowing they are useful but very dangerous tools and treat the accordingly. The problem is people who only grew up seeing guns on the TV, movie, and video game screens and associate them with glamour and excitement and a sense that they can be used without consequence and the story will come out all right in the end because the good guys always win and the bad guys always lose.

I can see the NRA's point that actually realistically educating kids about guns might help the situation. Because the current attempt at prohibition is working about as well as our attempts to prohibit drugs or stop teens from drinking or just telling teens not to have sex.

We can't keep going the way we've been going. But I have my doubts that parents are suddenly going to start taking their pediatricians' advice about limiting their children's screen time and exposure to violent imagery. And any gun laws written now are not going to change the number of guns already on the ground.

I don't have the solution. But I'm pretty sure banning open carry in Starbuck's isn't it. Unless you're involved in crime, the people you generally have to worry about are the people with the illegal guns who are concealing them and the cops.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

Business owners and other gun nuts use guns to save lives, defend property, and stop crimes with regularity.
Some. Some lose it and cause the deaths of others, by accident or design. Sometimes they do that in defense of property as a result of an over-reaction. Some use their guns to commit crimes, not stop them.

Guns can, and do, get misused by all categories of gun owners. Sometimes you can't tell a good guy with a gun from a bad guy with a gun. Sometimes good guys do bad things.

Generalisations are not universals.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I can see the NRA's point that actually realistically educating kids about guns might help the situation. Because the current attempt at prohibition is working about as well as our attempts to prohibit drugs or stop teens from drinking or just telling teens not to have sex.
WHAT current attempt at prohibition? Are you in the same United States that I am?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Generalisations are not universals.
Unless we are talking about legal open carry.

Then just run, RUN!!

Call later to complain.
 
Posted by Egeria (# 4517) on :
 
I wouldn't only leave a coffee shop if someone came in carrying a gun; I would avoid doing business there again.

How many murders and suicides and fatal accidents are there for every "life saved" by a legally purchased weapon? Why is it that gun freaks keep insisting they need the protection even as the crime rate has been dropping for years? And those corrupt assholes who defend guns and gun freaks are the very same assholes who encourage idiots (in both the current and the ancient Greek senses of the word) to hate and fear the very idea of government. The "rugged individualists" (read: sociopathic bullies) and "pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps" True Believers who fantasize about living on the frontier, a dirty lawless ignorant pit without police or firefighters, without schools or libraries or parks.

If I knew that a business owner was opposed to gun control, I'd boycott.

Despite what saysay babbles about how Americans hate and fear their government (egged on by extremist rightwing politicians), there are plenty of us who don't. Just as there are plenty of us who don't buy into the "American exceptionalism" that came up a couple of pages back and don't believe the Second Amendment guarantees personal arsenals (well-regulated militia, remember). That city-on-a-hill Big Lie was fostered by a couple of the most intellectually limited presidents in history.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

Business owners and other gun nuts use guns to save lives, defend property, and stop crimes with regularity.
Generalisations are not universals.
Furthermore, that isn't a generalization so much as it is a demonstrable fact.

Care to dispute it as such?
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, in economically trying times a business owner who sends paying customers packing with words to that effect deserves what he gets (which, is likely to be an end to his business). I strongly doubt that there are enough open carry nuts out there to keep him in business if he kicks out all the customers who feel unsafe seeing guns in public.
You apparently have never been to gun-crazy Arizona. The open carry nuts would definitely mean more to most businesses than those of us who hate guns. Then again, there are those with concealed carry permits, so you never know who's got a gun that you can't even see.
[Help]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Well, states with the most stringent gun laws see fewer gun-related deaths. If that matters to anybody.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
WHAT current attempt at prohibition? Are you in the same United States that I am?
No, I don't think I am.

I lived in DC under the gun ban.

In most of the states I've lived, the list of persons prohibited from owning a firearm keeps getting longer and longer. Which means more criminals (violent criminals at that), but not necessarily less gun violence.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:
How many murders and suicides and fatal accidents are there for every "life saved" by a legally purchased weapon?
We already know the answer to this. It's 22.

Although come to think of it I'd have to find the link again to know if the accidents were all fatal ones.

Another article I just saw put it this way: how many times in their life is a gun owner actually going to have a chance to heroically save themselves or another? Maybe once in a lifetime. How many times in their life are they going to have a chance to have an accident, to get in a quarrel that escalates while no-one is thinking straight? A heck of a lot more.

Bringing a gun into your home is significantly increasing the risk that someone is gonna die. It's as simple as that. And you and your family and friends spend a heck of a lot more time in that home than any intruder does, so the idea that the person who's gonna get hit by the gun is a baddie is a fantasy of the highest order.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Also, we have the most venomous snakes in the world. We try to stay away from them rather than thinking a gun is going to solve the problem. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I know people (including relatives) who have, at various points in their lives for different reasons, decided to open carry. They have all been not only responsible gun owners but also the type of people who both know the importance of de-escalating conflict and have the skills to do so.
Great. Now, tell me how I would know whether the bloke walking into the local coffee shop with a gun at his waist is a responsible gun owner and has the skills to de-escalate conflict?

quote:
I can see the NRA's point that actually realistically educating kids about guns might help the situation.
Yes, actually that would help. And, not just kids - educate adults as well.

Here's a simple thing to do. Organise professional gun-education. Include lots of testimony from people who have accidentally shot someone else, and the families of those killed by legal guns used irresponsibly. Include all the studies which prove conclusively that owning a gun for "protection" puts you and your family at significantly greater risk than not owning a gun. Include safe storage. Include some live-fire training. And so on. And, then introduce a requirement that anyone wantign a firearm license has to attend such a course and pass a test at the end to demonstrate that they have assimilated the necessary knowledge. That's not even much more than what's required to get a license to drive a car. I'd expect a good number of people sitting the course decide that actually they don't need a gun after all.

Make that a requirement for any new gun purchases. Give current gun owners a year to sit the course and pass the test, and then start collecting in the guns of those who fail the test or don't even sit it. Put cops at the front of the line to do the course, and those who fail get to go on beat armed with a tazer.

An additional thought came to me. Given the proven increased risks associated with owning guns I would expect insurance companies to be amenable to increasing premiums for those who own guns. If it discourages gun ownership that means less insurance payouts, if it doesn't then the additional costs of payouts for gun related death and injury are covered, and maybe they can look at cutting premiums for responsible people who don't own guns. But, maybe increased insurance premiums are something that gun owners already happily pay.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:
How many murders and suicides and fatal accidents are there for every "life saved" by a legally purchased weapon?
We already know the answer to this. It's 22.
What a useless statistic.

You have to factor Chicago out of that number because no one gives a shit about those people.

That should bring it down to about 6 or 8.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:
How many murders and suicides and fatal accidents are there for every "life saved" by a legally purchased weapon?
We already know the answer to this. It's 22.
What a useless statistic.

You have to factor Chicago out of that number because no one gives a shit about those people.

That should bring it down to about 6 or 8.
Fantastic. So, you're only going to take 6 to 8 lives for every life you save? Yahoo! Suddenly a gun seems like a useful appliance! My chances of being a hero could be as high as 15%!

That's assuming that your bald assertion about Chicago has any merit whatsoever.

[ 05. October 2015, 02:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
PS For anyone who says it's too hard to change America, read this.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, actually that would help. And, not just kids - educate adults as well.

Here's a simple thing to do. Organise professional gun-education. Include lots of testimony from people who have accidentally shot someone else, and the families of those killed by legal guns used irresponsibly. Include all the studies which prove conclusively that owning a gun for "protection" puts you and your family at significantly greater risk than not owning a gun. Include safe storage. Include some live-fire training. And so on. And, then introduce a requirement that anyone wantign a firearm license has to attend such a course and pass a test at the end to demonstrate that they have assimilated the necessary knowledge. That's not even much more than what's required to get a license to drive a car. I'd expect a good number of people sitting the course decide that actually they don't need a gun after all.

Make that a requirement for any new gun purchases. Give current gun owners a year to sit the course and pass the test, and then start collecting in the guns of those who fail the test or don't even sit it. Put cops at the front of the line to do the course, and those who fail get to go on beat armed with a tazer.

An additional thought came to me. Given the proven increased risks associated with owning guns I would expect insurance companies to be amenable to increasing premiums for those who own guns. If it discourages gun ownership that means less insurance payouts, if it doesn't then the additional costs of payouts for gun related death and injury are covered, and maybe they can look at cutting premiums for responsible people who don't own guns. But, maybe increased insurance premiums are something that gun owners already happily pay.
Explain to me how we're supposed to pass legislation requiring such things in an environment where liberal demands on gun control (and everything else) mean that 5-year-olds caught using their finger as a pretend gun are suspended from public school.

(Because those restrictions are already in place in a lot of places before you can buy certain types of guns or receive permits to carry them).

But we can't teach about it because that would be teaching violence, according to NY or CA.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
PS For anyone who says it's too hard to change America, read this.
That article says nothing useful.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Explain to me how we're supposed to pass legislation requiring such things in an environment where liberal demands on gun control (and everything else) mean that 5-year-olds caught using their finger as a pretend gun are suspended from public school.
First off, even in the librul UK I've not come across that sort of extreme reaction. But, I suppose there are probably stories of "loony left" councils doing that (see the Corbyn thread in Purgatory where I pointed out that all those stories, such as banning the "racist" rhyme "Baa baa black sheep", were total inventions by the media seeking to discredit the Labour Party). Do you happen to have any credible source to support your assertion that liberals seek to ban using fingers as pretend guns?

But, let's for the moment accept that there are some nut cases on both sides of the gun control argument; some would seek a ban on anythign gun related, including children playing using their fingers as pretend guns, and others who would seek to have even more guns everywhere. Are you seriously going to say that because of a very small number of complete nutters that we should therefore abandon any attempt to find a common-sense approach down the middle ground?

If there actually aren't a sizeable number of members of Congress, State Governors, Senators and other representatives who are not on either extreme fringe and willing to sit down together and put aside Party affiliation for the sake of finding a common sense solution to the epidemic of gun related deaths in you nation, and to do the work to make that work, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the lunatics have taken over the assylum and your country is on the fast road to hell without even the protection of a handbasket.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Do you happen to have any credible source to support your assertion that liberals seek to ban using fingers as pretend guns?
Link

Government education in the US cannot be characterized as dominated by conservatives, to say the least.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Reading orfeo's article, I think the author is really naive.

And Alan, re your last paragraph: actually, that pretty much is the case, and some of us American Shipmates have said that on many threads, over many years.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Nothing useful? Naive?

It is already established that states with tighter gun controls have fewer deaths.

Fine. Just line yourselves up to be shot. For fuck's sake.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Do you happen to have any credible source to support your assertion that liberals seek to ban using fingers as pretend guns?
Link

Government education in the US cannot be characterized as dominated by conservatives, to say the least.
From teacher's statement, it seems like the kid wasn't so much suspended for making "gun finger", but for repeatedly disobeying a request from said teacher to stop bugging other kids. It may seem extreme, And maybe was an overreaction, but you try getting kids to know you mean business when you never enforce limits.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Nothing useful? Naive?

It is already established that states with tighter gun controls have fewer deaths.

Fine. Just line yourselves up to be shot. For fuck's sake.
Why in God's name are you equating Golden Key's mild skepticism with anything at all saysay says? Have you read nothing else she has written?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
orfeo--

IMHO, he's naive about getting it passed, implementing it, etc. He's naive about the obstacles.

I *want* gun control. I *want* shootings to stop. But people have tried for a long, long time, and haven't gotten much traction, certainly not on a national basis. People have been trying hard for a long time. Every bit of that matters. But the author severely underestimates how difficult the level of change he wants is going to be.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Thanks, Kelly.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
orfeo--

IMHO, he's naive about getting it passed, implementing it, etc. He's naive about the obstacles.
Well all I can say to that is that you didn't read it very carefully. Quote: "Summoning the political will to make it happen may be hard." And there's about a paragraph in that vein.

That's not the point of the article. The point is that the solution is not conceptually difficult.

[ 05. October 2015, 04:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
... ( To GK)and anybody bothering to read a damn word you said would know that.
Also:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

And Alan, re your last paragraph: actually, that pretty much is the case, and some of us American Shipmates have said that on many threads, over many years.
Actually several Americans have been saying this repeated times over the course of the last few days. I don't think gun control legislation is impossible, but the route there is definitely going to rival anything Jerry Bruckheimer came up with. We got a lot of crazy to fight past.

[ 05. October 2015, 04:33: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Then vote.

Write.

Call.

Post.

Seriously, I know you've got one of the most corrupt political systems going, but get involved in it. Make it clear to your representative that being against gun controls will lose them votes. TELL THEM. Get everyone you know to TELL THEM.

It's the only language politicians understand.

Meanwhile, I'm finding that my Australian friends are posting more comments on Facebook against American gun culture than my American friends are. See the problem with that? We don't vote in your elections. We don't have any influence over your politicians.

Ooh. You want to get angry with me for suggesting we care about your problem more than you do? Fine. GET ANGRY. And then go and fucking DO SOMETHING with that anger. Be motivated!

Stop fucking wasting your emotion on this sitting around here and whinging at a bunch of international Shipmates about how we don't understand how haaaaaaard it is. Go and use that energy somewhere useful.

[ 05. October 2015, 04:48: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
And what he said was an extreme understatement.

It's not people haven't been trying very, very hard already. The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence comes to mind. It was founded by James Brady, press secretary to Pres. Reagan, who was severely injured during the assassination attempt on Reagan. They've made some progress--over decades.

There aren't any quick, easy, or simple fixes.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
orfeo--

"The point is that the solution is not conceptually difficult."

Seriously, you think the problem is that we don't have the concepts???


[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Then vote.

Write.

Call.

Post.

Seriously, I know you've got one of the most corrupt political systems going, but get involved in it. Make it clear to your representative that being against gun controls will lose them votes. TELL THEM. Get everyone you know to TELL THEM.

It's the only language politicians understand.

Meanwhile, I'm finding that my Australian friends are posting more comments on Facebook against American gun culture than my American friends are. See the problem with that? We don't vote in your elections. We don't have any influence over your politicians.

Ooh. You want to get angry with me for suggesting we care about your problem more than you do? Fine. GET ANGRY. And then go and fucking DO SOMETHING with that anger. Be motivated!
You're judging how people vote, mobilize, etc by what memes they post?

How the hell do you know what petitions we've signed, what lawmakers we have contacted, what groups we belong to? Or what kind of things we say to the people in our lives who are directly involved in this?

Memes on fucking Facebook don't do a hell of a lot, except make like minded people feel better. Maybe your American friends are all quiet because they are trying to organize their thoughts to figure out what will work.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
And among California's Congress folk are Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Sen. Barbara Boxer, and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, all of whom work very hard for gun control.

Dianne has quite a background in bad weapon experience-- including finding Mayor George Moscone after he was assassinated.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Seriously, you think the problem is that we don't have the concepts???
It's not true of all Americans, and certainly not true of some posting here. But there does appear to be a collective blindness within American society to some basic concepts.

Examples would include recognising that a gun is an extremely unsuitable tool for self defense.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Nothing there to disagree with. That is the predicament, too-- the solutions/ policy changes are the easy part, making the blind see is the real job.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
And getting money out of the legislative system. And getting Congress to actually do the right thing.


(And, for those who don't know, Americans are often glad when Congress hits gridlock in their work, because it keeps them from doing *some* of their crazier ideas.)
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Thanks orfeo. Saved me a post. As in other aspects of this debate the evidence devalues the mythical assertions.

Serious Hell threads have a lot going for them.

On the RUN point romanlion, nice cross reference to WWE. Seriously, I'm too old to run. Might be able to conjure up a brisk walk. But I don't think I 'd want to turn my back. That doesn't strike me as all that wise either. I'm more into soft answers which - sometimes - turn away wrath. Note that I'm not generalising about that and I haven't got supporting stats either.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
If it wasn't obvious, my thanks were about the posts to romanlion.

On the difficulties and frustrations in getting legislative change, I'm with Kelly and Golden Key. There is a very large elephant to be eaten, one mouthful at a time. And it's hardly surprising if some folks lose heart.

The Man's too Big. The Man's too strong? Powerful song from Dire Straits that. Some lines come to mind.

'I have legalised robbery, called it belief. I have run with the money I have hid like a thief'

'Invented memories. I did burn all the books'

The hearts and minds change is a huge challenge. As we have daily proof.

[ 05. October 2015, 07:21: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

Business owners and other gun nuts use guns to save lives, defend property, and stop crimes with regularity.
Generalisations are not universals.
Furthermore, that isn't a generalization so much as it is a demonstrable fact.

Care to dispute it as such?
Yes. Especially considering that statistics are very hard to come by, and often because your government, under massive pressure from the NRA paid-for shills, can't even collect reliable data to do with gun injuries and deaths.

That you are awash with guns because you are awash with guns is a symptom of your sickness, not the cure.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
orfeo--

"The point is that the solution is not conceptually difficult."

Seriously, you think the problem is that we don't have the concepts???


[Roll Eyes]
Given the number of people I see talking about mental illness being the problem - "oh, if only we could make sure only the sane people were awash with guns" - and the number of people who still think that having a gun of their own is a solution, yeah, I think that overall your nation is still having quite a bit of trouble with the concepts.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
There are lots of issues.

Ease of access to guns

'The Game' - saysay is right about that for some cities at least

The doctrinaire block on information gathering as part of ongoing powerful lobbying

The undoubted truth that self defence issues look different in a society awash with guns

The second amendment

The impact of certain elements of the media

The hearts and minds convictions of a lot of people

As a wise person once said, 'I really wouldn't want to start from here'.

The lack of political consensus is hardly surprising.

[ 05. October 2015, 08:36: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:


It is already established that states with tighter gun controls have fewer deaths.

Asserted is more accurate than established.

Illinois in general and Chicago specifically have had some of the toughest restrictions on the books for decades. Not exactly a region that leaps to mind when thinking about low gun violence.

Chicago is so bad that Barry doesn't even mention it, and I don't blame him. The place is a bloodbath, and him their best and brightest.

Illinois recently passed concealed carry legislation and has issued over 100,000 permits, a quarter of those in Chicago alone. Those are you hearts and minds right there.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well, states with the most stringent gun laws see fewer gun-related deaths. If that matters to anybody.
Except, of course, for DC (yes, I know, not technically a state, but reported as such in your link). Most stringent gun control laws in the nation, and highest rate of gun-related deaths. Not exactly a poster child for stringent regulation.

As for the rest of the data set, the largest average gap shown in the article is very minute[1]. Also interesting to note is that the general difficulty of obtaining a concealed carry permit[2] makes no difference, on average - 3.78 deaths/100,000 population.

We can argue the points of gun control laws, but these stats don't really give you much, I'm afraid. [Smile]

[1]4.23 deaths per 100,000 population vs. 3.02 deaths/100,000 population

[2]It should be noted that laws differ from state to state - some states make no differentiation between open and concealed carry, while others have a two-tier system, with concealed carry permits harder to get.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
If you are going to nitpick other people's examples, don't use Chicago and DC to bolster yours. because one, it is like saying locks don't work because you installed one after your house was robbed. And two, only a complete idiot doesn't realise that neither city is a remote island or walled enclave.
Oh, and three, because tighter gun laws won't instantly change things doesn't mean they won't work.
And fuck the mass shooting. Fuck this conversation with a rusty chainsaw. It is shocking, yes. But the maddening thing is how many people die every fucking week. But bog standard murder, suicide, accidental shootings and the like just aren't important enough to register.
If the gun culture "cannot" change, it is because you do not wish it to change, not because change is impossible.
Forget bans, other countries have responsible gun ownership and many fewer deaths.
Unreasoned paranoia and worship of a fictional, penny dreadful version of history is more important than the lives of your neighbors.

[ 05. October 2015, 15:30: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If you are going to nitpick other people's examples, don't use Chicago and DC to bolster yours. because one, it is like saying locks don't work because you installed one after your house was robbed. And two, only a complete idiot doesn't realise that neither city is a remote island or walled enclave.
Oh, and three, because tighter gun laws won't instantly change things doesn't mean they won't work.
I wasn't saying any of that, actually. Only that the cited stats weren't particularly useful to prove his (or anyone else's, frankly) point. I didn't actually mention Chicago, in any case - you must mean someone else.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And fuck the mass shooting. Fuck this conversation with a rusty chainsaw. It is shocking, yes. But the maddening thing is how many people die every fucking week. But bog standard murder, suicide, accidental shootings and the like just aren't important enough to register.
If the gun culture "cannot" change, it is because you do not wish it to change, not because change is impossible.
Forget bans, other countries have responsible gun ownership and many fewer deaths.
Unreasoned paranoia and worship of a fictional, penny dreadful version of history is more important than the lives of your neighbors.
You'll not hear me argue with much, if any, of that, friend. Other than the "your" - but I'm going to assume you didn't mean me, specifically, there.

Pax.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Apparently, Fox News has declared that over here in Australia we have no freedom because we don't have guns.

That rumble you can here in California is 25 million people simultaneously shouting "Fuck You".
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
As for the rest of the data set, the largest average gap shown in the article is very minute[1].
[1]4.23 deaths per 100,000 population vs. 3.02 deaths/100,000 population
[/QB]
I'm not sure if I'd call preventing a (9-11) a year a minute difference. Or 28%.

Of course that's the largest difference. On the one hand you've regression to the mean and correlation not causation.
But on the other hand that's with the other states making life harder.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I would think most people would consider a 25% reduction in gun related deaths a very good start. It does take a particularly pessimistic personality to consider it such an out right failure that it's not worth trying to at least emulate that elsewhere.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Hear, hear. Shut up and start eating the elephant.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
romanlion--

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Chicago is so bad that Barry doesn't even mention it, and I don't blame him. The place is a bloodbath, and him their best and brightest.
Goodness, you said something nice about Obama! Are you feeling well?
[Biased]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Although, to be fair to Chicago the murder rate has halved in the last 20 years. Though, still 15.1 homicides per 100,000 population, 3 times the average for Illinois (at 5.4 gun-related deaths per 100,000 from the earlier linked to NJ report) but with at least six states having a larger rate of gun related deaths. Yes, I know, I'm comparing total homicides (according to Wikipedia about 25% of homicides in Chicago do not involve a gun) with total gun related deaths including suicide and accidental shooting. But, I can't be arsed to find the comparable statistics. Just that according to the numbers, rather than media portrayal, Chicago is not as violent a city as implied by some posts here. And, more importantly, the introduction of gun controls (and other policing measures) has reduced the homicide rate by a significant amount.

And, as Chicago Police include a wider range of crimes in such categories as assault and sexual crimes than most other US cities the figures are going to be higher.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
orfeo--

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Meanwhile, I'm finding that my Australian friends are posting more comments on Facebook against American gun culture than my American friends are. See the problem with that? We don't vote in your elections. We don't have any influence over your politicians.
...perhaps...just perhaps...your American friends were dealing with their own feelings...maybe even had some connection to Roseburg...and, just maybe, they didn't want to deal with all the crap that would probably be thrown at them...

If they're your friends, judging them by whether or not they publicly disapprove of their culture in the wake of a tragedy seems...rather strange and unfriendly.

You don't vote in our elections or have control over our politicians? Maybe that's why you're so judgmental. However deeply you may mean the things you say, it's *recreational* for you. Whereas, for those of us who live here, *we* vote, the elections are often messed with, and we don't have much control over our politicians. When we do make progress, often someone rips it away again. "Let's ban individual ownership of assault weapons!" Things get better. "Oh, but we need our assault weapons!" Law runs down and isn't renewed. (Lather, rinse, repeat.)

Telling us "well, if you idiots just do THIS, all will be well, and you'll be like all the rest of us" .doesn't. .really. .help.

[ 06. October 2015, 01:44: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Just to underline the above-- goddamn motherfucking son of a bitch. AAARRRGGHH!!!
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
From the article:
quote:
Conservatives aren’t lying when they say they need guns to feel protected. But it’s increasingly clear that they aren’t seeking protection from crime or even from the mythical jackbooted government goons come to kick in your door. No, the real threat is existential. Guns are a totemic shield against the fear that they are losing dominance as the country becomes more liberal and diverse and, well, modern. For liberals, the discussion about guns is about public health and crime prevention. For conservatives, hanging onto guns is a way to symbolically hang onto the cultural dominance they feel slipping from their hands.
This. This bullshit right here. THIS.
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well, states with the most stringent gun laws see fewer gun-related deaths. If that matters to anybody.
Except, of course, for DC (yes, I know, not technically a state, but reported as such in your link). Most stringent gun control laws in the nation, and highest rate of gun-related deaths. Not exactly a poster child for stringent regulation.
So a single urban core not more than ten miles on a side, population 635,000 of a 6 million person metro area, a bridge away from a state with some of the loosest gun regulations in the nation, that has seen its murder rate drop to about a quarter of what it was during the gang wars of the crack years (early '90's, when Barry was mayor), is comparable to, say, Oklahoma?

Really?

There's a reason one of our local news sites has made "most recent meaningless comparison between DC and states" a regular feature.

ETA: and did we mention the whole "Congress can overrule or defund any aspect of local government it wants at a whim" thing? You know, the thing that happens when a Republican congress get to control a Democratic city and score points back home in Utah or Texas? There's a reason why the attorney general of DC teaches a course at Georgetown Law about "a federal city-state with limited democracy."

[ 06. October 2015, 02:49: Message edited by: Ariston ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Personally, I think DC should become a state, if the residents want that.

My guess is someone prevented it from being so, once upon a time, because some sort of vested interest was served that way.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Insert more swearing. And some sobbing.

""This is not a gun issue, this is a parenting issue. Our problem with our country now is that we're not stepping in and being good parents. We're not stepping in and teaching them right from wrong," Mr Peterson said." Oh, for Christ's sake! [Mad]

[ 06. October 2015, 04:03: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
{{{{{{{Kelly}}}}}}}

Maybe take a break from articles, for a while? Sometimes, a bit of a "news fast" helps.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Personally, I think DC should become a state, if the residents want that.

My guess is someone prevented it from being so, once upon a time, because some sort of vested interest was served that way.
Because that would mean two new Democratic senators and one new Democratic representative. That's sure as hell not going to happen any time soon with the chokehold the GOP has on the house.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
{{{{{{{Kelly}}}}}}}

Maybe take a break from articles, for a while? Sometimes, a bit of a "news fast" helps.
When I feel I am more extremely pissed off than anyone else on this thread, I will take your advice. Right now I think it's about even steven.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Kelly--

Fair enough.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Insert more swearing. And some sobbing.

""This is not a gun issue, this is a parenting issue. Our problem with our country now is that we're not stepping in and being good parents. We're not stepping in and teaching them right from wrong," Mr Peterson said." Oh, for Christ's sake! [Mad]
Of course it's a parenting issue. What sort of parent leaves a gun somewhere that a six year old child can get at it? What is so radically difficult about the concept of a locked, secure gun cabinet? And, with removing ammunition when stored, and storing that in a different location than the gun? The simple application of common sense and making guns inaccessible when not in use would reduce the number of accidents considerably.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
My dad had a rifle for hunting, and the only time I saw it was after he died--I still don't know where he kept it all that time. So yeah, there's that. But to go flying into a " this isn't a gun control issue" like that? What the hell?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
From the article:
quote:
Conservatives aren’t lying when they say they need guns to feel protected. But it’s increasingly clear that they aren’t seeking protection from crime or even from the mythical jackbooted government goons come to kick in your door. No, the real threat is existential. Guns are a totemic shield against the fear that they are losing dominance as the country becomes more liberal and diverse and, well, modern. For liberals, the discussion about guns is about public health and crime prevention. For conservatives, hanging onto guns is a way to symbolically hang onto the cultural dominance they feel slipping from their hands.
This. This bullshit right here. THIS.
Actually, I've been thinking about this. Cultural identifiers are very important when people feel their culture is threatened - whether that's a dominant culture or not. People find emblematic aspects of their culture and not only grab hold of them, but even inflate and exagerate them.

To take an unrelated example. In Scotland, Highland culture has survived by making it important children learn Ghallig in school (even though virtually no uses it in everyday conversation in much of the country), 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 and exagerated ritual for serving it. These are all emblematic expressions of a culture trying to maintain a presence within a dominant British culture.

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. And, when that happens attempts to remove that cultural emblem will meet resistance, as an attack on the entire culture rather than just one aspect of it. Another recent example relates to a flag, which is something actually designed as a cultural emblem, as a means to identify where your people are in the chaos of battle (and, in the UK flags have been a major issue in attempts by some groups in Northern Ireland to maintain a cultural identity).

So, I can see how for some groups within the US, gun ownership is an emblematic cultural issue. Openly carrying a gun in public, for example, would then be a statement of cultural identity meeting the same functional requirement as wearing a kilt to a rugby match (although a gun is a lethal weapon which adds an additional element of danger to others). The way American history has been mythologised to support the ownership of guns - the frontiersmen fighting wild animals and rogue natives, the Western cattleman fighting banditos, the revolutionaries fighting off British oppression - even to the point of effectively re-writing the 2nd Amendment is entirely consistent with that whole grasping of a cultural emblem. In that case, arguments about defence of oneself or others is actually a rationalisation, and the presentation of evidence that clearly shows the facts that this is a false security will fall on deaf ears. This cultural symbolism with gun ownership appears from over here to spread across a diverse range of cultural groups - the same fears of other cultures suppressing and dominating your own culture appear in the Alabama red-necks hanging desperately to their guns wrapped in that flag, and the Latino kids Kelly mentioned a few pages back, and almost certainly other groups as well.

It makes guns part of the complex problem that the US has of being a multicultural society. It's part of the same general problems of race, of ethnic identity, of religious diversity. Which doesn't, of course, mean that gun control is impossible. But, it has to be part of a wider program to address the wider issues within society. It means helping each of those cultures who use gun ownership as emblematic to find other parts of their culture they can raise up as identifiers, as something to keep them distinct from the cultures around them, so that they will freely give up their guns as a means of marking themselves out.

I said back on page 1 that a common sense approach to the gun problem has to start with conversation - you need to talk people into realising that their guns are not all that they have to identify their place in wider society. Without that then any gun-control legislation will be seen as others coming to take their cultural identity along with their guns. I also said it would need to be slow.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Hold on to your guns and condemn the gays. What a great pair of cultural signifiers for the modern American conservative Christian, eh?

And the whole either/or thing... it's a gun issue AND a parenting issue. Teaching your kids that they have to accept they can't just have whatever they want whenever they want it is important, but kids have tantrums and it's fucking nuts to make it that easy for a kid having a tantrum to employ lethal force.

Which is kind of why I despair at the whole "just keep the guns away from the crazy people and we'll be fine idea". People go off the deep end all the time, for a whole host of reasons, and lots of them are not mentally ill in any formal sense. Sometimes they're just having a really bad day. But having a gun around can make all the difference to what the consequences are.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Alan--

Many good points there. [Smile] Thank you for working through that and trying to understand. I'm not sure who can have those conversations you mentioned. Maybe someone from those cultures who tried putting down their gun, and found that it worked out ok?

Personally, I'd be for a lot of gun safety promos on TV and radio, like the ones I mentioned that helped me when I was a kid. Not anything about getting rid of guns, because that will freak people out, but some basic safety and "don't play with guns" stuff. *Maybe* also a "if you have kids living in or visiting your home, think about whether you really need to have a gun. If you do, then here are some safe ways to store it."

And screen the film "My Bodyguard" a lot. And the episode of "MacGyver" where we saw a flashback of why he hates guns. (A horrible, fatal accident, for which he was partly responsible.) Screen the whole series, because he frequently said "I hate guns".

ETA: Oh, and the episode of "Cagney and Lacey", where Mary Beth's son gets his hands on her police weapon, and she educates him by taking him to the morgue to see a kid who was shot to death. Brutal, but makes the point.

[ 06. October 2015, 07:46: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
The right to bear arms hasn’t actually protected any of the many people on the receiving end of one man exercising that right, in multiple instances.

There was a second multiple shooting on the same day as the Oregon killings, which I only read about this morning. It didn’t receive half as much attention because it was overshadowed, and only involved three people. As one of the people in the article said, it’s a sad thing when the murder of three people is considered commonplace enough not to be particularly newsworthy.

(I’ll try to find the article, but was reading it on my phone and I haven't found it on the regular BBC or Sky news sites.)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I'm not sure who can have those conversations you mentioned. Maybe someone from those cultures who tried putting down their gun, and found that it worked out ok?
It has to someone inside the culture, otherwise it's just another outsider coming along and saying "you need to ditch that bit of your culture" which will just reinforce the impression of being a downtrodden culture, and hence the importance of the cultural emblems.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Barnabas--

Good job on your list of issues. [Smile]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
However deeply you may mean the things you say, it's *recreational* for you.
Fuck that shit with a rusty farm implement. Is that what you really think? When we get exercised about refugees drowning in the Med, or the use of food banks to keep people from starving, that's *recreational*?

No, we don't have to (currently) live it. We don't have to live in a society that is so awash with guns that it's normal (about 1 every day) for a gunman somewhere to kill or injure at least 4 people in a single incident.

Never mind the fact that we might have friends and family who live there. Never mind that we have Shipmates who we might just care about who live there. Never mind that, oh I don't know, we might just come to your country for work, or a holiday, and don't really fancy spending our entire time over there wondering if some idiot with a grudge and a gun is going to start shooting the place up.

If you don't recognise the word 'empathy' then try 'enlightened self-interest'.

[Disappointed]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Doc Tor--

I was speaking only to orfeo and *his* particular comments. That's why I addressed the post to him, and quoted him.

What he said was very different from what you just said, in both comment and tone. Go back and read his full original post. I think it's a page or two back. IIRC, it's the one that starts off telling us to write, vote, etc.

[ 06. October 2015, 10:15: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
That should be "content", not "comment".
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
And you don't think that what applies to me, applies to orfeo's friends? That they're somehow disinterested observers, pointing their telescopes across the ocean and tutting?

Maybe it's true for some of them. I'll bet it isn't for many of them.

Yes, it's true that only the US can get its shit together over this, but don't ever make the mistake that this is a purely internal debate in which no one else has anything at stake.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Doc Tor--

orfeo very specifically complained that his Australian friends were loudly protesting American gun regulations (or lack of them), and his American friends weren't, and that somehow meant that Americans didn't give a damn about the shooting or about the gun situation.

He then went on to say what I quoted, which boils down to "we can't fix it for you--get off your asses".

I took exception to his assumptions and arrogance and way of expressing all that.

It wasn't about anyone else.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Oh, hang on. He's right - we can't fix it for you - and you're objecting to him saying it's way past time you got your shit together on this.

You could have constructively spent your pixels in emailing your state and federal representatives instead. If you've already done it once, maybe a letter a week from now on.

We can't fix it for you, but it's sure as hell affecting us.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Doc Tor--

As I posted earlier, my Congress people are all fighting the good fight on gun regulation, and have been for a long time, and AIUI California's gun laws are some of the strictest in the nation.

And I and several other American Shipmates have worn down our keyboards the past few days, explaining what it's like from the inside, what's worked and what hasn't, and the whys and hows. Not one of us has said that no one should bother to make things better. We've said that there are huge obstacles, like Congressional corruption. Some non-American Shipmates either don't read the posts, don't understand them, or don't believe them; then they start yelling at us and telling us What Will Fix The Problem, as if none of us had posted, and as if Americans are just sitting blithely around, not caring, not trying, and not doing anything to help ourselves. So we explain again, and the same comments are thrown at us again, and it keeps going around.

That gets frustrating and tiring.

As Kelly said (paraphrase), the people telling us to get off our asses have no idea what any particular Shipmate has done. And they don't seem to get that you can do all the right things, and the right and good outcome doesn't happen.

Something--I think the article to which orfeo linked--said well, we managed great things re car safety and re tobacco, and we can do that for guns, too.

However, it took major struggles, for many decades, to get as far as we have. Ralph Nader and Nader's Raiders, back in the day, did yeoman's work on car safety and many other things. 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. And the tobacco companies are still putting out a very harmful product, and still trying to attract children.

Work on gun regulations and safety has been going on much of the same time, and is probably as hard as the car and tobacco work put together. People ARE off their asses and trying, even in Congress. But, as I said in an earlier post, often the good results don't have much traction, and someone rips the progress away.

I was thinking about this, in the wee hours a couple of days ago, and realized (both seriously and cynically) that the one solution that might work is to get a rich gun control advocate to pay Congress more than the NRA and gun industry do. Things might change real fast.

No one (including me) has said for non-American Shipmates to stop caring, or to go away and leave us alone. We just want you to stop and listen to us, and consider that we might have some idea what we're talking about, and might not be just sitting on our asses.

That's it.

[ 06. October 2015, 11:26: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Oh, hang on. He's right - we can't fix it for you - and you're objecting to him saying it's way past time you got your shit together on this.

You could have constructively spent your pixels in emailing your state and federal representatives instead. If you've already done it once, maybe a letter a week from now on.

We can't fix it for you, but it's sure as hell affecting us.
What he said was "Line up against a wall and let yourself be shot," and he connected this directly to something Golden Key said. If that's empathy, it's a pretty shitty way to express it.

So, those of us who are advocating "eating the elephant" not only have to fight past the despair of what is happening to our own people, the despair of trying to reason with the kind of people described above, but the despair of isolation, when not even the people who theoretically agree with you hold you in contempt because the problem hasn't been solved yet.

[ 06. October 2015, 13:41: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
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.
That. Is. Not. What. Got. Me. Angry.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
... And only listen to those one line bits of what you say that allow them to strike another blow.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
All this " why aren't you doing more" and " why aren't you supporting us" can be solved in stroke if we say "what can WE--Shipmates-- do?"

Seriously, what can we do? Because I am in if you are.

[ 06. October 2015, 14:03: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
So a single urban core not more than ten miles on a side, population 635,000 of a 6 million person metro area, a bridge away from a state with some of the loosest gun regulations in the nation, that has seen its murder rate drop to about a quarter of what it was during the gang wars of the crack years (early '90's, when Barry was mayor), is comparable to, say, Oklahoma?

Really?

There's a reason one of our local news sites has made "most recent meaningless comparison between DC and states" a regular feature.

ETA: and did we mention the whole "Congress can overrule or defund any aspect of local government it wants at a whim" thing? You know, the thing that happens when a Republican congress get to control a Democratic city and score points back home in Utah or Texas? There's a reason why the attorney general of DC teaches a course at Georgetown Law about "a federal city-state with limited democracy."
Not arguing any of that. I didn't compile (or even link to) the statistics, I'm just going on what's presented. Personally, I concur with you - DC is an outlier that is throwing the rest of the averages off, possibly significantly. 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.)

Again, I was merely pointing out that the link full of statistics didn't actually provide much support for MT's argument. Or anybody else's, from whatever position, for that matter - in large-scale terms, there's just not that much difference between the various states, on average. Which makes one wonder how effective (if at all effective) any of the current laws are.

Mea culpa for trying to look detachedly at data in the middle of an emotional rant. [Biased]
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
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.
quote:
... Another recent example relates to a flag, which is something actually designed as a cultural emblem, as a means to identify where your people are in the chaos of battle (and, in the UK flags have been a major issue in attempts by some groups in Northern Ireland to maintain a cultural identity).
Absolutely - and in Northern Ireland people have indeed suffered violence because of differences of opinion regarding flags, but again, the flags themselves aren't actually going to harm anyone. I could handle the fact that our next-door neighbour in Belfast festooned his house and garden with Union flags every July, but I'd have been a lot less comfortable if he'd pruned his roses while carrying a gun.
quote:
So, I can see how for some groups within the US, gun ownership is an emblematic cultural issue. Openly carrying a gun in public, for example, would then be a statement of cultural identity meeting the same functional requirement as wearing a kilt to a rugby match (although a gun is a lethal weapon which adds an additional element of danger to others) ...
That's my point - a gun is a lethal weapon and IMHO no amount of "cultural identity" can justify taking one into a coffee-shop (or for that matter keeping one in a house where an 11-year-old can get access to it).

As an Orcadian, I probably had an ancestor somewhere along the line who wielded a battle-axe, but that wouldn't justify my going into Tim Horton's for a coffee with one slung over my shoulder. The "right to bear arms" as enshrined in the American Constitution may have made perfect sense in 1776, but seems over the top in the 21st century.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
Oh for fuck's sake! [Mad] [Mad]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Oh for fuck's sake! [Mad] [Mad]
How the heck can that be described as an accident? It's about as accidental as unintentional pregnancy from unprotected sex.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
How the heck can that be described as an accident?
Because by the reports, the boy did not intend to fire the gun.

quote:

It's about as accidental as unintentional pregnancy from unprotected sex.
Not quite. In the case of the unprotected sex, the man is intending to shoot his gun, but is hoping that nothing will get hit. In this case, he was handling his weapon and it went off in his hand.

Grossly negligent? Absolutely. We could make a list of the safety rules that were likely broken in this case, but it would be quicker to list the ones that probably weren't.

But still an accident.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
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'?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Maybe to get the pro-lifers interested, what the USA really need is a bunch of mass shootings of pregnant women in the stomach.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
There are perfectly safe ways of shooting with children.
Fucking hell, what is wrong with you people?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
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.)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
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".
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
Like you actually give a rat's ass about anybody in Chicago.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
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."
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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.
[Mad]
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.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
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. ]
 
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
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 otherą, and even though many have taken him seriously we're still struggling with it.

The awkward truth is that humans˛ 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 benefitsł.

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.

ą Thanks, Douglas Adams.

˛ Some humans. There are exceptions, happily.

ł And we don't deny that there are benefits. But a couple statistically-insignificant benefits do not magically banish the overwhelming and idiotic risks.
 
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
You know one of the biggest contributors to Chicago's gun violence?

Indiana.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Exactly: an edge state that is fundamentally meaningless in context of general discussion. In much the same way that general dissuasion of using metal objects to penetrate skulls is in no way countered by the possibility of neurosurgery.

[fuck context]

[ 07. October 2015, 23:30: Message edited by: RooK ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
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 guess your take on that sample of the much more complex article was, " if we all make like hippies and just lurve each other, we won't need gun control."
The rest of the article doesn't bear that interpretation out, IMO. I think what he is saying is, when we do get gun laws changed, we will still have an attitude problem that needs to be adjusted.

Gun control and a reassesment of values. There is a difference between having occasionally to deal with violence and being constantly up to your neck in it.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
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.
Yes, it sure is. When I was a kid in scouts we had a well supervised shooting range at camp and used single shot 22s. Shooting shotguns, though, is recommended for kids 13 and older because of recoil and the like. However, the kids must use just the guns provided and they can't bring their own guns and/or bows.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
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.
Which doesn't answer why you're trying to achieve it in the first place.

I'm sure it's perfectly possible to find a way to paint myself fluorescent green safely.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I guess your take on that sample of the much more complex article was, " if we all make like hippies and just lurve each other, we won't need gun control."
No, that is not my take on the article. To be honest, I did not read the link, I did not notice it. I was reacting to the bit you quoted. I've now read the article and it does not change my reaction.

This quote
quote:
We need stricter gun control laws, no doubt. But we need so much more than gun control. We need models who will lead us toward a massive shift in our culture.
from just before the one in question is phrased much better, IMO. Unfortunately, he continues and emphasises culture change more than rational gun laws.
I agree that a culture shift is needed, but reducing the easy access to guns will reduce deaths without that iffy shift.
Think of it like reducing weight.
Self-control is more assured when the temptations are not readily at hand.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
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.
Nonsense.

You are right - guns are dangerous. They are indeed designed to kill people, by propelling small bits of metal very fast out of the pointy end.

They are not, however, indiscriminately dangerous. If you're not standing in front of the business end, then barring some kind of freak gun explosion failure, you are perfectly safe.

Accidental deaths occur because some "trained adult" has done something very stupid, and because people expect "trained adults" not to do that kind of thing, there's nobody to intercept the error before someone gets hurt.

A necessary, but not sufficient, condition for "accidentally killing someone" is to have the muzzle of your gun pointing at them. On a shooting range, in controlled conditions and with adequate supervision, it is easy to prevent this from happening.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Which doesn't answer why you're trying to achieve it in the first place.
Target shooting, like archery, is a sport that some people find enjoyable. Why teach a child to play football safely, or to fence safely, or ...
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Accidental deaths occur because some "trained adult" has done something very stupid,
Despite your scare quote, this is the point. All it takes is a momentary lapse. With guns, it is not if, but when. Proper training and repetitive, redundant safety measures reduce incidents. But they will never eliminate them.
You are saying your choice is more important than the lives of others. Plain and simple.

[ 08. October 2015, 02:08: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
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.
Which doesn't answer why you're trying to achieve it in the first place.
I know your solution is probably to simply be a household that doesn't own guns. However, if you are a household that does own guns (and here is one of the better things I've read about why one might choose to do so) and you are a household that has children, IME you have two options:

1) Keep the guns locked in storage boxes separate from the ammunition. Teach your children that guns are occasionally useful but always very dangerous things. Tell them that they are only for adults.

IME, childhood curiosity being what it is, this means that at some point the child is going to attempt to get into the box and play with the glamorous adult thing when you are not there.

2) Keep the guns locked in storage boxes separate from the ammunition. Teach your children that guns are occasionally useful but always very dangerous things. Teach them to always assume the gun is loaded, to never point it at anything unless they are willing to see that person or thing die, and to never touch them unless there is an adult in the room supervising them. Teach them safe handling of the weapon and shooting as it seems developmentally appropriate to each child.

Having guns in a house with children but not teaching the children anything about them because it's not an appropriate subject for a child is, IME, a recipe for disaster.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Target shooting, like archery, is a sport that some people find enjoyable. Why teach a child to play football safely, or to fence safely, or ...
I don't hear of children accidentally killing anyone with a football, or swords, or arrows. I haven't heard of anyone killing anyone with any of these things, let alone children killing children.

I'm reminded of the unfortunate trend to have kids trained up in MMA - mixed martial arts. Cage fighting for children. Who would Jesus ground and pound, and make to tapout?
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

Having guns in a house with children but not teaching the children anything about them because it's not an appropriate subject for a child is, IME, a recipe for disaster.
Sure. We teach them about knives, matches, electrical sockets, and all sorts of other things that can hurt or kill.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I guess your take on that sample of the much more complex article was, " if we all make like hippies and just lurve each other, we won't need gun control."
No, that is not my take on the article. To be honest, I did not read the link, I did not notice it. I was reacting to the bit you quoted. I've now read the article and it does not change my reaction.

This quote
quote:
We need stricter gun control laws, no doubt. But we need so much more than gun control. We need models who will lead us toward a massive shift in our culture.
from just before the one in question is phrased much better, IMO. Unfortunately, he continues and emphasises culture change more than rational gun laws.
I agree that a culture shift is needed, but reducing the easy access to guns will reduce deaths without that iffy shift.
Think of it like reducing weight.
Self-control is more assured when the temptations are not readily at hand.
Ok, I still see him as generally supporting gun control, but wanting to look at why we are so violent, exceptionalist, capitalist, etc. to begin with. He is a minister, his invoking introspection does not surprise me. What is needed for the flock to do is a lot different than what is needed for the nation to do.

Maybe I will have the energy to compose a post later about the scary level of ingrained violence I am currently seeing in the kid population I am working with, but for now, trust me that, for a certain sector of society, the call to model community, reconciliation, and resistance to violence is a lot more than just an academic excercise. It is vital to survival-- mental and (perhaps) physical.

I wiil say this- I believe every child I am currently working with is suffering from some form of PTSD, purely from the chaotic environment they live in. Gang/ gun culture is a large part of that. Territorialism and hyper- individualism is, too.These kids see escalating fights on their doorstep, a lot of times in their crowded houses, and in some places I have worked they hear neighborhood gunfire about three or four times a week. ( Fourth of July was heartbreaking-- every time a pop was heard, kids would grab a teacher in terror.)
So-- fuck, yeah, bring on the next peace movement. Bring on next new Gandhis. Please.

[ 08. October 2015, 02:32: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
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.
Must contradict. I was a Boy Scout and at 10 we were firing .22 rifles at summer camp. We had strict rules, we always fired prone and on command, we were under constant supervision, and nobody ever got hurt. It is possible for children to use guns safely. But it takes a lot of infrastructure, including in our case the sifting process of becoming and remaining a Boy Scout.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
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.
Which doesn't answer why you're trying to achieve it in the first place.
Because it's a fun contest of hand-eye coordination to see if you can hit closer to the bull's eye than your fellow scouts. It's a difficult skill to master, which makes it even more fun. And it's a lot less painful than archery, in my experience.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I don't hear of children accidentally killing anyone with a football, or swords, or arrows. I haven't heard of anyone killing anyone with any of these things, let alone children killing children.
I don't hear of boy scouts killing anybody on their rifle range. There was some dumbfuck that put an automatic weapon into a child's hands and paid for it sometime back. But single-loading .22 rifles in the very controlled environment of a Scout camp are much less dangerous by factors of 1000 than playing football, which destroys many young people's spinal cords every year.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
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.
Must contradict.

[followed by personal anecdote of not experiencing a gun accident]
What part are you contradicting?

Just because your experience of supervised gun use at Scout camp has never included an accident does not mean that accidents never happen. Nor does it mean that there might have been other safeguards that could have been included. All it means is that you were lucky (albeit in this case in a situation where the chances are significantly improved through good practice).
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Personal tales of not dying are all kinds of confirmation bias, and statistically N=1.

Translation: worthless.

I have varied personal tales of not dying from operating motor vehicles in illegal ways; should those be supportive arguments for such actions? No. Traffic mortality rates overwhelm the stupid.

I have a couple tales of surviving mostly unscathed from unfortunate choices in proximity to grizzly bears and cubs; does it then make sense for me to assure that therefore it can be fine to do so? No. Because it's just too stupid to mention.

Stop being so fucking stupid. Guns don't keep any civilian safe in any meaningful way. Because they're not about being safe. Which is why they should be carefully regulated, like everything else that is dangerous. Like every other fucking country in the world does.
 
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
Mostly unscathed? Do tell!
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Just because your experience of supervised gun use at Scout camp has never included an accident does not mean that accidents never happen. Nor does it mean that there might have been other safeguards that could have been included. All it means is that you were lucky (albeit in this case in a situation where the chances are significantly improved through good practice).
The "albeit" you slip in at the end is where my entire conversation consisted. "Children should never be allowed to touch guns, even if you did and lived!" is what you're saying. I say bunk. It's scaremongering.

[ 08. October 2015, 04:39: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
No, it's called risk assessment.

It is factually inaccurate to state that under trained, responsible adult supervision in a suitable location with a suitable weapon that children can use guns without any chance of their being an accident. Nothing is 100% safe, and guns will always be less than 100% safe.

Yes, with suitable precautions the risks associated with using guns can be significantly reduced. We then get into the numbers game, how frequently is it acceptable for something to go wrong? 1 in every 10,000 rounds fired? 1 in every million? What are the consequences of something going wrong? In the worst case, that's someone dead. And, every thing is a balance, what are the benefits from this activity and do they justify the risk? If the benefits are very small then even a very small risk is hard to justify, if the benefits are greater perhaps one could justify greater risk.

Although, as anyone who has every had any experience with risk assessment and risk communication will know, no matter how much we try to quantify things ultimately these things come down to subjective matters of judgement.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, it's called risk assessment.

It is factually inaccurate to state that under trained, responsible adult supervision in a suitable location with a suitable weapon that children can use guns without any chance of their being an accident. Nothing is 100% safe, and guns will always be less than 100% safe.
In which case it's fatuous to use lack of 100% safety as a club to beat it with. Nobody should ever skydive, or ride horses, or play sports, or go on amusement park rides, or go to Who concerts. These things have all taken more lives than Boy Scout camp shooting ranges.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Ugh. Look, I'm for strict gun control, but making something like very carefully supervised shooting at Boy Scout Camp off limits (while keeping rappelling down cliffs, hiking for miles in the Midwest summer, camping in tick-infested and mosquito-ridden West Nile virus prone areas, etc.) is just silly.

Of course there's a greater than null risk. There is a greater than null risk to just about every activity, and turning 18 is not going to magically convert a person into a safer shooting trainee. If there are Boy Scouts interested in hunting, better they learn how to fire a gun safely and properly under trained and paranoid supervision than that they try to pick it up somewhere dodgier.

Seriously, the Scouts don't bring the guns, they don't take them home, they don't lay a finger on them unless they are in the proper location doing the proper thing under trained supervisors (yes, this is what Mr Lamb was forced to get into bed with the NRA for, and I am currently fending them off as they call freaking DAILY in the hopes that he'll re-up--as if. He needed certification to handle this Scout activity in conjunction with other also-trained leaders--in spite of 7 years service in the Vietnam War, and two years of training before that. They take safety seriously in the Boy Scouts.

It so happens that LL isn't interested in shooting (hates loud noises), but I'm fairly sure it's one of the safer activities he could do at Scout camp. And far better than turning guns into utterly forbidden fruit, which always glamourizes things.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, it's called risk assessment.

It is factually inaccurate to state that under trained, responsible adult supervision in a suitable location with a suitable weapon that children can use guns without any chance of their being an accident. Nothing is 100% safe, and guns will always be less than 100% safe.
In which case it's fatuous to use lack of 100% safety as a club to beat it with. Nobody should ever skydive, or ride horses, or play sports, or go on amusement park rides, or go to Who concerts. These things have all taken more lives than Boy Scout camp shooting ranges.
I'm not sure anyone is stating that such activities shouldn't be done just because they're not 100% safe. If you can point to anyone using a "it's not 100% safe" club here, please do so. Because actually, most of what I've read has been the other way round - well supervised shooting ranges are very safe so shouldn't be banned.

Safety is part of the package of considerations that go into deciding if an activity should go ahead, or if my child should be allowed to participate. I've already mentioned judging what the benefits are. There are also questions relating to wider social impacts - for example, does Boy Scout camp shooting increase the social acceptability of gun ownership and use in less controlled situations?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are also questions relating to wider social impacts - for example, does Boy Scout camp shooting increase the social acceptability of gun ownership and use in less controlled situations?
I read your post that way too.

As for increasing social acceptability--

I think I'm going to wait to worry about that one until we can get the constant gun violence off TV and out of the movies, as well as out of the neighborhoods. Scout shooting seems to me to be mentally placed in the context of hunting, not keeping a handgun at home to blow away intruders. There are still plenty of Americans who routinely go hunting to fill up their family freezer, and who help keep the exploding deer population at least a tiny bit more under control. (I'm told venison makes good chili.)
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are also questions relating to wider social impacts - for example, does Boy Scout camp shooting increase the social acceptability of gun ownership and use in less controlled situations?
That sounds very social-engineering to me. No, Boy Scouts can't do blah-blah-blah because they could grow up to be such-and-such.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are also questions relating to wider social impacts - for example, does Boy Scout camp shooting increase the social acceptability of gun ownership and use in less controlled situations?
That sounds very social-engineering to me. No, Boy Scouts can't do blah-blah-blah because they could grow up to be such-and-such.
Just part of the package of things to consider. Part of it may be how the Scout leaders present the exercise. I can see a very reasonable "guns are very useful tools for hunting for food, and we're going to teach you to use them responsibly" type approach - fitting in well with the lighting fires etc activities. I can also see a (to me) less reasonable "it's really good fun to shoot things" type approach - and, of course, Scout camps also include lots of things that are just for fun.

Depending on how it's presented, the same activity can have different wider social implications. "Guns are fun things to have to shoot stuff with" is a much less socially responsible attitude to give than "guns are a useful, though dangerous, tool to be used responsibly and carefully".

Besides, what's wrong with social engineering? We teach our kids all sorts of stuff that is effectively making sure they're equipped to live in society. Most of the time those are all entirely positive (good manners, respect for others etc). But, I'm not sure anyone will want to ban debating societies because the kids might turn into politicians or other social scum.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Scout shooting seems to me to be mentally placed in the context of hunting, not keeping a handgun at home to blow away intruders. There are still plenty of Americans who routinely go hunting to fill up their family freezer, and who help keep the exploding deer population at least a tiny bit more under control. (I'm told venison makes good chili.)
My wife (here in East Anglia) had a young lad in her class who would regularly go hunting with his dad from an early age. I think he was given his first "very own" shotgun at the age of about 10. This was perfectly legal as there is no age restriction in the UK for getting a shotgun licence if the parents approve the application. (Not many people know that).

They only killed for meat (which they ate themselves or sold to a local "Game Meat" company that supplies several farm shops); or because farmers wanted to get rid of vermin (e.g. foxes). The boy is now a teenager and left the school; my wife recommended that he follow a career path as a gamekeeper. As far as my wife was concerned, the family was highly responsible in its approach to these guns.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
You do all know that the Scouts and Guides in the UK can offer rifle shooting as an activity? It's provided on some the scout camps sites along with archery and a whole lot more. There are nationally provided risk assessments to do it, properly trained instructors and all the other checks.

And then there are the Air Training Corps, Army Cadets (and probably Sea Cadets, but I don't know for them) who all learn about guns and how to handle them.

We give a lot of our youth opportunities to play with guns legally in the UK too.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Well, the Scouts use air rifles, not shotguns. But I take the point.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
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.
Which doesn't answer why you're trying to achieve it in the first place.
I know your solution is probably to simply be a household that doesn't own guns. However, if you are a household that does own guns (and here is one of the better things I've read about why one might choose to do so) and you are a household that has children, IME you have two options:

1) Keep the guns locked in storage boxes separate from the ammunition. Teach your children that guns are occasionally useful but always very dangerous things. Tell them that they are only for adults.

IME, childhood curiosity being what it is, this means that at some point the child is going to attempt to get into the box and play with the glamorous adult thing when you are not there.

2) Keep the guns locked in storage boxes separate from the ammunition. Teach your children that guns are occasionally useful but always very dangerous things. Teach them to always assume the gun is loaded, to never point it at anything unless they are willing to see that person or thing die, and to never touch them unless there is an adult in the room supervising them. Teach them safe handling of the weapon and shooting as it seems developmentally appropriate to each child.

Having guns in a house with children but not teaching the children anything about them because it's not an appropriate subject for a child is, IME, a recipe for disaster.
Look, none of this is terribly controversial, and in fact some of it is law in Australia.

But I don't see that teaching/warning a child about guns when there are guns present, in their house, when the adults in the house have legitimate reasons for the guns, is at all analogous to what I was reacting to which was a situation where children were being given guns to use. As a recreational activity of some kind.

Now, kids learning to use guns is in fact possible in Australia, but it is extremely tightly controlled. I'm pretty sure that if a Scout troop wanted to run a gun-shooting activity (and my troop sure as hell never suggested such a thing, nor have I ever heard of that idea here*) I'm pretty sure the only way they could possibly do it would be to go to a licensed range. I also think the minimum age is something like 14, though I couldn't swear to it.

* The whole idea that shooting a gun might be a recreational activity you want to introduce kids to just doesn't compute here. Maybe it does in some rural areas, but I suspect the vast majority of people who ever get into shooting as a sport here are people who initially learnt about guns because they were on farms where guns were practical tools first.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

* The whole idea that shooting a gun might be a recreational activity you want to introduce kids to just doesn't compute here. Maybe it does in some rural areas, but I suspect the vast majority of people who ever get into shooting as a sport here are people who initially learnt about guns because they were on farms where guns were practical tools first.
That's the part that doesn't compute for me either. It's not so much why not as why?

It reminds me of all the mothers of 4 year-old beauty pageant queens. They say it helps build confidence in the child and gives the mothers and little girls a shared activity, just like all the men in West Virginia who can't wait to take their little boy hunting for the first time. Aren't there better things to do together?

Here's some things my parents did with my brothers and me: Made gigantic kites and flew them, went camping, pitched tenets built fires, grew apple trees, made applesauce, built a roller coaster down the hill in the back yard with tracks and carts on roller skates, built soap box derby cars, made clothes, took dance lessons, took piano lessons, learned to paint, played basketball, played baseball, made puppets, put on a play.

So many ways to learn hand-eye co-ordination, spend bonding time together and have fun without ever learning how to use a weapon made for killing things.

[ 08. October 2015, 11:06: Message edited by: Twilight ]
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, I'm not sure anyone will want to ban debating societies because the kids might turn into politicians or other social scum.
[looks thoughtful] You know, you've got an idea there.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Gun control and a reassesment of values. There is a difference between having occasionally to deal with violence and being constantly up to your neck in it.
This. A thousand times this.

The problem we're having on this thread is a microcosm of the problem we have here in America - people tend to look at the gun issue (and a host of others) in a binary, black-or-white way. The solutions aren't either-or, they're both-and.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
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.
Which doesn't answer why you're trying to achieve it in the first place.
1) Learning gun safety and proper handling at a young(ish) age, in a strictly controlled environment, leads to less accidents later on.

2) Shooting teaches hand/eye coordination, breath control, and discipline.

3) It's fun. And it's fun to try and outdo your buddies.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I'm reminded of the unfortunate trend to have kids trained up in MMA - mixed martial arts. Cage fighting for children. Who would Jesus ground and pound, and make to tapout?
That's just crazy. I study martial arts, and I'm generally in favor of children studying them, as well - but this is just insane. Children that age's bones haven't finished developing yet; injuries can lead to lifelong problems. It's the same reason kids under 16 shouldn't train on a heavy bag - permanent damage to the wrists and elbows is a possibility.
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
GodDAMN, I'm about to sound like a right-wing, red-blooded 'Murican right about now. Wooohooo, bring on da gunz!

But if you're handwringing over Scouts learning target practice, you're out of your ever-loving minds.

It's not just that it's a controlled, safe environment. It's that the whole point of the exercise is control. From the moment you arrive at the gun range to the moment you walk away, every movement has to be regulated—and not just by the rangemasters, but by yourself. You move differently, your focus is more intense, you have to regulate your breathing, sync it with your movements, all coming down to an instant, with proof of your self-control thirty yards away.

It's also a chance to see guns used in a way that isn't glamorous—indeed, is kinda boring. Seriously, that description up there sounds halfway like yoga with a bang. Nobody gets killed. Nobody gets hurt. No beers are consumed, no highway signs get shot, no windows are broken, no yelling is allowed—heck, you don't even get the deer camp experience of your uncle telling off-color jokes. If there's anything that deglamorizes gun use and glorification, it might just be getting to use guns. You're taking away the mystery, replacing it with a series of repetitive motions and breathing exercises.

Really, the only people who are going to be attracted to that vision of gun ownership are slightly pudgy, awkward, uncoordinated suburban kids who hate team sports, love being outside, and may have found one of the few sportish things they're good at.

I haven't had the chance to shoot a rifle in many years, but I'd be interested to see if I've still got it.

It's like so many other things—the tool will be used as its owner intends it to be used. For some, it's a test of skill on a range. For others, a tool for harvesting game or protecting livestock. It can be a weapon in the hand of a self-proclaimed "sheepdog," a self-justifying vigilante without a shred of humility or self-doubt, or an emblem of rural roots, a connection to the land and a past fading into memory.

As should surprise nobody, I'm not a Second Amendment type—I have no wish to return to the gang wars of the '90's, and really, really wish the States weren't doing such a great job exporting guns to countries like Mexico that really don't need our own problems exported with them. Frankly, gun culture scares the bejesus out of me, especially in the stark terms in which it justifies a sort of "shoot first, think whether you should later" vigilanteism and moral irresponsibility. I really do think the world would be a better place with fewer guns in it, especially my neck of it. I really don't much care for the way we have become slaves of our tools, cowering before their power.

But, if you're a civilian, that's what guns are in the end—tools. Maybe sporting equipment, if you want to draw a distinction. When I look through a Remington catalog, it's a window on a way of life I'm connected to through my family and vaguely understand but never lived myself, a life where hunters and ranchers need these tools like I need my pedal wrench and shaping ribs.

That may be part of the cultural shift we've been talking about, but I'm afraid things are too far gone for that to happen. I'm pretty sure what I wrote above will be seen as gun nuttery here, but would be mealy-mouthed liberal indecisiveness leaving us open to violence to others.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

* The whole idea that shooting a gun might be a recreational activity you want to introduce kids to just doesn't compute here. Maybe it does in some rural areas, but I suspect the vast majority of people who ever get into shooting as a sport here are people who initially learnt about guns because they were on farms where guns were practical tools first.
That's the part that doesn't compute for me either. It's not so much why not as why?

It reminds me of all the mothers of 4 year-old beauty pageant queens. They say it helps build confidence in the child and gives the mothers and little girls a shared activity, just like all the men in West Virginia who can't wait to take their little boy hunting for the first time. Aren't there better things to do together?

Here's some things my parents did with my brothers and me: Made gigantic kites and flew them, went camping, pitched tenets built fires, grew apple trees, made applesauce, built a roller coaster down the hill in the back yard with tracks and carts on roller skates, built soap box derby cars, made clothes, took dance lessons, took piano lessons, learned to paint, played basketball, played baseball, made puppets, put on a play.

So many ways to learn hand-eye co-ordination, spend bonding time together and have fun without ever learning how to use a weapon made for killing things.
It may not compute THERE, but this country still has a lot of open space suitable for hunting, often close by--and a number of dangerous animals (e.g. bears, mountain lions) which you want to keep in the back of your mind when you're planning that hike / camping / hunting trip way out in the boonies. So it's a bit different here. And in neither case (hunting / protection) is the gun intended for "having fun". It's a working tool, and subject to a shitload of precautions just as any dangerous tool is.

As for bonding activities--

I'm talking about families where the parents go hunting as a matter of course to feed the family (also fishing etc.) whether there are children or not. Naturally the children take part in the family activities once they are old enough and properly trained. This isn't something cooked up to serve as a bonding exercise, it's just a normal part of the work of the year--plant the garden in spring, pick peaches etc. in summer, do canning at harvest, go hunting in fall, etc. Forbidding a teenager to have anything to do with hunting is in this sense more like forbidding them to go grocery shopping than like forbidding them to be in a beauty contest. Yes, they may find it pleasurable, but the point is practical and not just "let's find a recreational activity to do together."

And the Scouts we've been talking about are a minimum of 12 years old, not four-year-olds or whatever.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:

It's also a chance to see guns used in a way that isn't glamorous—indeed, is kinda boring. Seriously, that description up there sounds halfway like yoga with a bang. Nobody gets killed. Nobody gets hurt. No beers are consumed, no highway signs get shot, no windows are broken, no yelling is allowed—heck, you don't even get the deer camp experience of your uncle telling off-color jokes. If there's anything that deglamorizes gun use and glorification, it might just be getting to use guns. You're taking away the mystery, replacing it with a series of repetitive motions and breathing exercises.

Really, the only people who are going to be attracted to that vision of gun ownership are slightly pudgy, awkward, uncoordinated suburban kids who hate team sports, love being outside, and may have found one of the few sportish things they're good at.

YES! Yes! Yes!

The whole boredom thing is why I am always glad when the Scouts decide to do something else, almost anything else, when we're at camp. Watching mud dry, for instance.

And re your last paragraph--this is why I loved archery growing up.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Really, the only people who are going to be attracted to that vision of gun ownership are slightly pudgy, awkward, uncoordinated suburban kids who hate team sports, love being outside, and may have found one of the few sportish things they're good at.
That sounds like me - although I tend to prefer inside to out!

About 15 years ago our family went on a holiday in Scotland which offered some fun, not-too-serious activities in the "package" such as a bit of dinghy sailing with the owner, a couple of gentle horse rides, and some clay-pigeon shooting.

My wife laughed herself silly at my riding but, rather to my surprise, I was quite good at the clay-pigeon shooting. But, after 4 sessions of 20 shots (spread over 2 weeks), I found it rather dull and I've never wanted to do it again.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Where I come from (WV/Ohio) It definitely is something cooked up for fun in about 90% of cases. Sure they may send that deer someplace to be turned into sausage to then be put in the freezer after one meal and left until it's thrown away next year. Mainly it's a macho coming of age tradition where father takes out son to do what his father took him out to do at the same age, and the kid gets the thrill of shooting the gun and takes that step beyond instinct where he pulls the trigger and knows what it feels like to kill something. He probably goes home proud and ashamed in equal confusing measure.

I just don't buy that shooting the gun in scouts teaches them how boring it is or makes for greater safety down the road. The safest way to handle a gun is to not have one. How many teens who are thinking about killing themselves or their classmates are going to think of using a gun if they don't know how to shoot one and there isn't one in the house? Some will still manage to get them and learn how to fire them, but I think it's probably less than the ones who learned all about it somewhere with that oh so fun -- no wait, boring -- target shooting.

I don't know how many families in America use hunting as their main source of family food. I expect, outside of Alaska, it's probably a very small number. We have to ask ourselves if their protein supplement and the gun sportsman's fun is worth 33,000 lives in America every year.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I just don't buy that shooting the gun in scouts teaches them how boring it is or makes for greater safety down the road. The safest way to handle a gun is to not have one.
Unless what you're envisioning here is wholesale banning and confiscation, that dog doesn't hunt (sorry, couldn't resist).

What happens when said 12 year old is at a schoolmate's house, and finds a gun unsecured? (The person who left it so needs attention, but that's beside the point I'm making here.) If said 12 year old has learned a thing or two about them on the Boy Scout rifle range, the chances are pretty good he's not going to pick it up, wave it around, and accidentally shoot someone - he (or she) knows what it is and what it does, and can treat it with the caution and respect necessary.

If, on the other hand, the only exposure to firearms said 12 year old has had is video games and TV, there's a lot more cause for concern, to my mind - s/he has no real concept of what it does, and that this isn't just for play.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I was a Boy Scout and at 10 we were firing .22 rifles at summer camp. We had strict rules, we always fired prone and on command, we were under constant supervision, and nobody ever got hurt.
Yes, exactly this. This is safe - it's as close to 100% safe as is achievable, or basically any activity. It is safer than many of the activities that we do every day without thinking about it, such as walking across a car park.

(I did much the same thing as a child in the UK, under similar conditions. I was a reasonable shot, but not fantastic. I haven't fired a gun since, but it's not impossible that I might choose to at some point.)
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Upthread there was reference to doing activities in the "boonies" and dangerous animals. IT's the wrong way of thinking. Having spent months at a time in areas which have plenty of "dangerous animals", and no people, we have never ever taken guns. Completely unnecessary, and an approach to the bush that is opposite to ours. Only two animals intimidate and require us to go away: grizzly bears and moose. It is their territory, and we move along. Others, like black bears, cougars and wolves, proper care of cooking and campsite will mean no issues. These are areas where few people travel, there are no facilities at all, and no organized campsites. If idiots (we call them that as a label when we come across what they did) have been careless in an area, the drill is to clean it up, and not to camp there.

I have owned guns, I have fired guns. Long guns, shotguns, pistols, revolovers. The long guns are only useful for hunting, but I gave that up nearly 30 years ago. The handguns are useless for hunting. I used to shoot about 3 or 4 bullets per year per gun I was using. A couple at a range, a couple at a deer, moose or elk. I regret the gratuitous shooting of skunks, porcupines, gophers, magpies, crows, coyotes, foxes, rabbits we did when we were young. We shot at anything you didn't need a license to shoot. This is unfortunately an ongoing pattern and the opposite to what we adopted. Yes, Scouts can shoot safely single-shot 22s. So can anyone. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with wandering around a town or school with a semi-auto and a pistol.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Yes, Scouts can shoot safely single-shot 22s. So can anyone. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with wandering around a town or school with a semi-auto and a pistol.
I don't think anyone has said that it did. The only thing that the two have in common is the fact that both activities involve both one or more guns, and one or more people.

There do seem to be some people arguing that because it's not safe for kids to wander around school with handguns, it must also be not safe for them to shoot .22s on the range, which I think is false.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Yes, Scouts can shoot safely single-shot 22s. So can anyone. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with wandering around a town or school with a semi-auto and a pistol.
I don't think anyone has said that it did. The only thing that the two have in common is the fact that both activities involve both one or more guns, and one or more people.

There do seem to be some people arguing that because it's not safe for kids to wander around school with handguns, it must also be not safe for them to shoot .22s on the range, which I think is false.
Which is entirely beside the point isn't it? The kids shooting single shot 22s at Scout camp is barely peripherally relevant. Yet you're posting about it in a thread that is about how guns cannot be controlled in the USA because idiots do walk around with guns there. Something to do with idolatry regarding the constitution you have apparently, which is accepted as tightly as flat-earthing biblical fundamentalists do the bible - nothing can be changed in the received text as if it is God's word, notwithstanding that "amendment" would indicate change. Could you folks have a constitutional conference or something?
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Upthread there was reference to doing activities in the "boonies" and dangerous animals. IT's the wrong way of thinking. Having spent months at a time in areas which have plenty of "dangerous animals", and no people, we have never ever taken guns. Completely unnecessary, and an approach to the bush that is opposite to ours. Only two animals intimidate and require us to go away: grizzly bears and moose. It is their territory, and we move along. Others, like black bears, cougars and wolves, proper care of cooking and campsite will mean no issues. These are areas where few people travel, there are no facilities at all, and no organized campsites. If idiots (we call them that as a label when we come across what they did) have been careless in an area, the drill is to clean it up, and not to camp there.
And when you live in an area where the coyote the government introduced to control the deer population and bear sometimes come up to the house in order to steal the chickens? What then?

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Which is entirely beside the point isn't it? The kids shooting single shot 22s at Scout camp is barely peripherally relevant. Yet you're posting about it in a thread that is about how guns cannot be controlled in the USA because idiots do walk around with guns there. Something to do with idolatry regarding the constitution you have apparently, which is accepted as tightly as flat-earthing biblical fundamentalists do the bible - nothing can be changed in the received text as if it is God's word, notwithstanding that "amendment" would indicate change. Could you folks have a constitutional conference or something?
No, we're not likely to have a constitutional conference.

Part of the argument against additional gun control laws is the question of how effective they would be given the number of guns already on the ground. They might very well help in the long term.

In the short term, however, I actually think it might help to de-glamourize guns to the people who have only ever seen them on screens, and teach those people proper gun safety. In which case, people's experience in Boy Scouts is relevant.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And when you live in an area where the coyote the government introduced to control the deer population and bear sometimes come up to the house in order to steal the chickens? What then?
What government where introduced coyotes? Never have heard of gov't introducing coyotes anywhere. They have re-introduced wolves that were exterminated from their normal territories in a number of places. But not introduced, restored. Its incumbent on the humans to adapt and safeguard.

In terms of bears coming up to the house, for starters, the chickens shouldn't be in your house, nor in a building attached to your house. Second, if it's the bears' territory, you have to adapt your construction to be properly secure against them, or you will shoot the first bear, and another will come along to take it's place. FWIW, we have a second home in a wildlife active area: coyotes, bears, moose, deer, wolves, squirrels, raccoons. Someone shot a bear in the townsite last year, if I heard right, they seized his gun and truck as well as fined him $2K and banned him from hunting and using a gun for some period of years, and they will auction his truck and gun off. Which sounds about right. We normally trap them. If the environment ministry wants to destroy an animal, that's their job, not our's, outside of hunting season.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
If the environment ministry wants to destroy an animal, that's their job, not our's, outside of hunting season.
[Killing me] And that just shows how different how different both our cultures and our governments are. Here state's have sometimes had coyote bounties, where they pay people to kill coyote (though not often because the money has to come from somewhere and it runs out quickly).

You can say the US should just be Canada as many times as you like, that doesn't make it a realistic possibility.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
[Killing me] And that just shows how different how different both our cultures and our governments are. Here state's have sometimes had coyote bounties, where they pay people to kill coyote (though not often because the money has to come from somewhere and it runs out quickly).

You can say the US should just be Canada as many times as you like, that doesn't make it a realistic possibility.
I never said USA should be like Canada.

We do make lots of money from camo-clad Merkin hunters who arrive at airports all suited up. Can spot them a mile away.

We had bounties on various animals until the 1960s for gophers and 70s for coyotes. We learned some things about ecology, natural cycles and continue to learn from the original peoples. The natural world is something we are part of not something we exterminate.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The natural world is something we are part of not something we exterminate.
[Overused]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...

We had bounties on various animals until the 1960s for gophers and 70s for coyotes. We learned some things about ecology, natural cycles and continue to learn from the original peoples. The natural world is something we are part of not something we exterminate.
Canada has coyote bounties as well as coyote killing contests.

Seems like extermination to me, but I'm sure it's all about ecology, natural cycles, and learning from original peoples. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I just don't buy that shooting the gun in scouts teaches them how boring it is or makes for greater safety down the road. The safest way to handle a gun is to not have one.
Unless what you're envisioning here is wholesale banning and confiscation, that dog doesn't hunt (sorry, couldn't resist).

What happens when said 12 year old is at a schoolmate's house, and finds a gun unsecured? (The person who left it so needs attention, but that's beside the point I'm making here.)
Ah. So kids have to learn about guns because even if they don't have one, other people will have one?

I don't think you realise this just illustrates a nutty culture rather than nutty individuals, which is what a couple of us have been saying. The very fact that guns are normalized is why these issues even arise.

You're rather reminding me of a friend who wanted a four-wheel-drive, because being higher up and in a sturdier car made her feel safer on the road with all the 4WDs. So you end up with more and more people in the city driving 4WDs for no reason other than a bunch of people in the city initially bought 4WDs.

Twilight's observation still stands: the safest way to handle a gun is not have one. The safest way for a society to deal with guns is not have many of them around. The best way to deal with the effects of pollution is not to pollute in the first place.

You can argue for all the effective band-aids you like, but they're all fundamentally going to be based on the premise that cutting yourself is a desirable first step.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I was a Boy Scout and at 10 we were firing .22 rifles at summer camp. We had strict rules, we always fired prone and on command, we were under constant supervision, and nobody ever got hurt.
Yes, exactly this. This is safe - it's as close to 100% safe as is achievable, or basically any activity. It is safer than many of the activities that we do every day without thinking about it, such as walking across a car park.

(I did much the same thing as a child in the UK, under similar conditions. I was a reasonable shot, but not fantastic. I haven't fired a gun since, but it's not impossible that I might choose to at some point.)
My Scout troop was 100% safe from guns. By not having any.

I'm also 100% safe from being injured by being chased by bulls in Pamplona. So far I have a 100% success rate of not getting a woman pregnant and I'm fairly confident of maintaining that record. My record is also remarkably good at not getting hurt or killed from jumping off clifftops, sticking knives in toasters, and tossing hairdryers in baths.
 
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Target shooting, like archery, is a sport that some people find enjoyable. Why teach a child to play football safely, or to fence safely, or ...
I don't hear of children accidentally killing anyone with a football, or swords, or arrows. I haven't heard of anyone killing anyone with any of these things, let alone children killing children.
I have. My father is the person who tends to get called in as an expert when an archery death happens. Three in the last decade in Victoria, to my knowledge - one of those a child accidentally shooting his next door neighbour.

They're not common, but they happen.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
In a school athletics lesson I had this misfortune to be involved in an accident involving a shot put. Big heavy lump of metal impacting a head is not good (fortunately a large bump, trip to hospital for check out and an all clear). Accidents happen, but we learn from them. In this case the lessons were 1) don't let me try the shot put again, and 2) in future lessons move the class an extra couple of steps back from the person actually trying to throw this heavy lump of metal in one direction in case it manages to go backwards.

The biggest frustration about guns in the US seems to be that there isn't a culture that follows every incident with an inquiry that seeks to learn from the incident to reduce the chances of it, or something similar, happening again. To err is human. To willfully refuse to learn from our mistakes is idiocy, and when those lessons could help save others verging on evil.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The biggest frustration about guns in the US seems to be that there isn't a culture that follows every incident with an inquiry that seeks to learn from the incident to reduce the chances of it, or something similar, happening again. To err is human. To willfully refuse to learn from our mistakes is idiocy, and when those lessons could help save others verging on evil.
Ah, but they already know the answer, Alan. Keep the guns away from the bad and crazy people, and keep them in the hands of the good people!

See? No inquiry needed!

Now, if we can just stop the baddies from removing their black hats all the time and blending in with the crowd...
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...

We had bounties on various animals until the 1960s for gophers and 70s for coyotes. We learned some things about ecology, natural cycles and continue to learn from the original peoples. The natural world is something we are part of not something we exterminate.
Canada has coyote bounties as well as coyote killing contests.

Seems like extermination to me, but I'm sure it's all about ecology, natural cycles, and learning from original peoples. [Roll Eyes]
There's often aberrations like you post about in NS and AB in a large country like Canada, particularly with 10 provinces and 3 territories which regulate resources themselves constitutionally. There's a controversy about BC wanting to kill bears from helicopters too, which is more recent than your links.

The point is that the culture does not sway in that direction, even with the aberrations.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ah. So kids have to learn about guns because even if they don't have one, other people will have one?
WTF? Scouts CAN choose to learn about guns, but no one is required to. Most choose not to. Is this so hard to understand?

[ 09. October 2015, 03:14: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Yes, Scouts can shoot safely single-shot 22s. So can anyone. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with wandering around a town or school with a semi-auto and a pistol.
Not the reason it was brought up. It was brought up to counter the "OH MY GOD YOU MEAN YOU LET CHILDREN FIRE GUNS HOW COULD YOU BE SUCH AN IDIOT YOU MORON BEAST ANTISOCIAL IDIOT?!!?!?!" phenomenon that infested this thread on the previous page.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
My Scout troop was 100% safe from guns. By not having any.

I'm also 100% safe from being injured by being chased by bulls in Pamplona. So far I have a 100% success rate of not getting a woman pregnant and I'm fairly confident of maintaining that record. My record is also remarkably good at not getting hurt or killed from jumping off clifftops, sticking knives in toasters, and tossing hairdryers in baths.
You are the poster boy for irrelevant.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
My record is also remarkably good at not getting hurt or killed from jumping off clifftops, sticking knives in toasters, and tossing hairdryers in baths.
Which, now that you mention it, all seem like behaviors that should be strictly regulated by government. Along with riding in/driving automobiles and swimming in water more than three inches deep.

Deadly business those cars and swimming pools...
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
My record is also remarkably good at not getting hurt or killed from jumping off clifftops, sticking knives in toasters, and tossing hairdryers in baths.
Which, now that you mention it, all seem like behaviors that should be strictly regulated by government. Along with riding in/driving automobiles and swimming in water more than three inches deep.

Deadly business those cars and swimming pools...
Ahahaha.

I do so love when people start trying to tell me things like this about the proper scope of laws. Seeing as how I work with laws every day.

I continue to be amazed and amused at how people keep trying to compare guns with other devices that don't actually have the explicit purpose of causing harm, as if there's an equivalence.

There really isn't. Although cars and swimming pools ARE regulated, so there's that hole in whatever argument you think you're trying to make.

If you want to discuss whether your posting on the internet ought to be more regulated in an attempt to save you from doing profound self-harm to your reputation, I'm all ears.

[ 09. October 2015, 04:17: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Deadly business those cars and swimming pools...
You say that like cars and swimming pools aren't already massively better-regulated than devices specifically designed to kill humans. I applaud your idea to introduce training-linked licenses and strict enforcement of operation, along with insurance and continuous safety improvements. Or even you're idea to have lifeguards on duty at all times seems better than what we have now. Good on you, and your progressive brainstorming.

Idiot.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
My record is also remarkably good at not getting hurt or killed from jumping off clifftops, sticking knives in toasters, and tossing hairdryers in baths.
Which, now that you mention it, all seem like behaviors that should be strictly regulated by government. Along with riding in/driving automobiles and swimming in water more than three inches deep.

Deadly business those cars and swimming pools...
Beds too. Tens of thousands die in them every day I'll bet.

Does your ignorance and glibness really know no bounds? I'd put a safety catch on your keyboard for now as it's making you look an ass.
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
Comparing guns to cars
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ah. So kids have to learn about guns because even if they don't have one, other people will have one?
Well, yes. Unless, of course, we're talking confiscation here, as I stipulated above. The number of firearms owned by individuals in the US means the chances are pretty darned good that little Joey has at least one friend whose parents have one.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't think you realise this just illustrates a nutty culture rather than nutty individuals, which is what a couple of us have been saying.
This from a man from the land of Dame Edna, the Wiggles, and Foster's "lager". [Razz] (I'll grant you Dame Edna is fairly benign, but the other two are deadly menaces.)

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The very fact that guns are normalized is why these issues even arise.
You do realize you could substitute virtually any controversial thing (or group of persons) into that sentence, and the argument would hold just about as much water, no?

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You're rather reminding me of a friend who wanted a four-wheel-drive, because being higher up and in a sturdier car made her feel safer on the road with all the 4WDs. So you end up with more and more people in the city driving 4WDs for no reason other than a bunch of people in the city initially bought 4WDs.
Which is a silly reason, I suppose. I drive mine because winters here suck, and the snow can get deep. (And the road plowing leaves quite a bit to be desired, when it gets done.)

To some degree, I see her point, though - if you are driving on a street full of large vehicles, and are concerned you might end up in a collision with one of them, suddenly a Smart Car doesn't seem so, um, smart.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Twilight's observation still stands: the safest way to handle a gun is not have one. The safest way for a society to deal with guns is not have many of them around. The best way to deal with the effects of pollution is not to pollute in the first place.
And the bestest way to ensure everyone has tea and cakes is to give them some at teatime. I admire your idealism, Orfeo, I do. The reality is that this ship has *long* sailed off into the sunset. What we need now are concrete, practical ways forward, not pie-in-the-sky ideals of how the world ought to be.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You can argue for all the effective band-aids you like, but they're all fundamentally going to be based on the premise that cutting yourself is a desirable first step.
Analogy fail.

You may see civilian ownership of firearms as "cutting yourself". Everyone's entitled to an opinion. I may disagree.

Responsible firearm ownership is possible. I've owned a few. No one's been injured by them. My friends and relatives have owned a crap-ton. No one injured there either.[1] So it's obviously possible. The question is how to make it more universal - maybe that's laws on storage, maybe it's mandatory safety classes and background checks, maybe it's something else we haven't though of yet. I'm all ears. But simply repeating "guns bad" ad nauseam isn't a solution. It isn't even useful. It just lowers the signal-to-noise ratio for those trying to find real solutions.

I've got no solutions, either - don't take this as me preaching at anyone. I'm not. I'm just looking for an answer like the rest of us.


[1] Obviously, anecdata. But it makes the point that one can indeed own firearms without them killing anyone.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Yes, Scouts can shoot safely single-shot 22s. So can anyone. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with wandering around a town or school with a semi-auto and a pistol.
Not the reason it was brought up. It was brought up to counter the "OH MY GOD YOU MEAN YOU LET CHILDREN FIRE GUNS HOW COULD YOU BE SUCH AN IDIOT YOU MORON BEAST ANTISOCIAL IDIOT?!!?!?!" phenomenon that infested this thread on the previous page.[qb]
So you make the point. People who do let or teach children to fire guns, drive cars, do mixed martial arts cage fighting, mix drinks, view porn, etc., are introducing children to things with pitfalls and potential dangers. It is certainly possible for children to learn to mix drinks and not drink themselves. It's not about being a moron or antisocial, it's about the consequences and contingencies of certain behaviour and learning. But because the culture is so gun and of violence perhaps it is best to have children know how to shoot. I believe the gun lobby NRA suggested that children should carry guns to school which they thought would prevent things like the Sandy Hook massacre. Bullet proof clothing might also be a good idea at schools. We've understood some American teachers keep peace in the classroom with guns.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Here in gun happy Arizona, there's been another campus shooting.
[Votive]
 
Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Bullet proof clothing might also be a good idea at schools. We've understood some American teachers keep peace in the classroom with guns.
Then those teachers should be sacked. If you can't control a classroom except by the threat of extreme - deadly - violence then you have no business being in charge of one.

Every teacher and every parent ought to know that if you make a threat (or specify a consequence) then you have to be prepared to go through with it, or it soon becomes hollow and worthless. So do these teachers blow away little Lisa for not stopping chatting to her friends, or double tap little Jimmy for chewing gum?
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Bullet proof clothing might also be a good idea at schools. We've understood some American teachers keep peace in the classroom with guns.
Citation, please? This sounds like someone's scare-mongering, or a headline from the Onion (satirical newspaper).
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I know some NRA tool suggested high school teachers should be permitted to have a firearm in class, and I know the Onion savaged this idea by declaring that the NRA suggested teachers should spend the entire day pointing a gun at the class. I want to say, who would be crazy enough to follow the NRA suggestions, but the phrase " Texas open carry activsts" springs to mind.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
An especially blatant and delicious hypocrisy is the NRA's annual convention, which this year is to be held in Nashville TN -- a notably gun-friendly state. They have announced that no one is allowed to carry guns into the convention. "Safety considerations"!
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Heh. I bet the venue managers said," We'll be watching you assholes..."
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ah, but they already know the answer, Alan. Keep the guns away from the bad and crazy people, and keep them in the hands of the good people!

See? No inquiry needed!

Now, if we can just stop the baddies from removing their black hats all the time and blending in with the crowd...
Oh, but they don't need hats to tell the good guys from the bad guys, they've already figured it out! The bad guys are the mentally ill!

Now all they need is all the hospitals and doctors to violate patient client privilege and report your medical history to your gossipy neighbor who sells guns at the flea market, then they won't sell guns to people with mental illness and there won't be anymore gun violence! Easy!

Never mind that taking away the right to privacy regarding your own medical issues is a far bigger loss than the right to bear arms.

Never mind that most people who kill with guns are not mentally ill at all.

Never mind that a large portion of people who are involuntarily committed to mental hospitals are anorexic girls too weak to pick up an automatic weapon.

Never mind that many of those who do have serious mental illnesses that might result in impaired thinking haven't been diagnosed so wouldn't be in the data base, while those who are seeing a doctor are probably taking medications that actually make them less likely to be violent than the non-mentally ill.

Never mind that one of the biggest problems with getting help for people with schizophrenia is that they fear, by going to the hospital, they will somehow come under the control of the government. These "gun control," laws would make that previously paranoid fear -- true.

These laws would actually result in fewer ill people seeking treatment and possibly more shootings by mentally ill people.

The political right and the NRA loves to deflect attention from their great big problem by suggesting this bad guy database as a solution.

The left jumps on this idea as a starting point to gun control. It's not gun control at all it's people control. It's a way to further marginalize and stigmatize the mentally ill while doing nothing about the real problem.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
Here is a map showing open carry by each state as of August 2014. All states now have concealed carry, it appears.

Our secretary just recently obtained her concealed carry permit. Her certificate states

"In delivering this course, I attest that I have complied with the requirements of 12 NCAC 09F .0105 for Concealed Carry Handgun Training and that the student named above has received at least eight hours of classroom instruction, with at least two hours on North Carolina law on concealed handguns, handgun safety and use of deadly force, and that the student has passed a written examination. I also attest that the student named has taken a proficiency examination in which the student has fired at least 30 rounds of ammunition at a target with at least 10 rounds fired from the 3 yard line, 10 rounds from the 5 yard line, and 10 rounds from the 7 yard line, and at least 21 of the 30 rounds fired hit the target. I further attest that the student named is competent with a handgun and knowledgeable in the laws governing the carrying of a concealed handgun and use of deadly force."

As I understand it, if you are going to carry in this state it has to be out in the open unless you have a permit to conceal it.

I doubt I will ever decide to spend 8 hours in a classroom and jump through assorted other hoops just to be able to lug around a concealed pistol. I'll probably just stick to a bullpup shotgun for home and for going up to the family mountain.

[ 09. October 2015, 13:53: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Bullet proof clothing might also be a good idea at schools. We've understood some American teachers keep peace in the classroom with guns.
Rhetoric like this is why those of us who acknowledge there's a problem and are trying to do something about it have so much trouble getting shit done.

Yes, we need to take steps to change gun culture in the US.

We also need to completely reverse certain educational trends, as gun culture is only one part of our increasingly toxic culture. But no one has suggested bullet-proof clothing, and schools are generally gun free zones.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
3 yard line, 5 yard line, 7 yard line
How small is the target? That seems ridiculously close.

Also isn't it rather badly worded, giving the capability for more than 30 shots (which kind of makes sense, practice is good), but then drifting into exactly 30 shots by the pass mark (which again makes sense, else you could keep going till you get the hits, and even with percentages you could get someone borderline over the edge). It needs something to split the two bits up.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
originally posted by Mere Nick:
3 yard line, 5 yard line, 7 yard line
How small is the target? That seems ridiculously close.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, it does, on one hand. On the other hand, it might be tough to explain why you just had to shoot someone 20 feet away. 3 yards, though? That's almost close enough to just pistol whip someone. I have no idea about the target size.


quote:
Also isn't it rather badly worded, giving the capability for more than 30 shots (which kind of makes sense, practice is good), but then drifting into exactly 30 shots by the pass mark (which again makes sense, else you could keep going till you get the hits, and even with percentages you could get someone borderline over the edge). It needs something to split the two bits up.
Yes, it seems if it should say you fired ten shots at each of the three test distances and that you hit the target at least seven of those ten shots at each distance.

I get the impression from looking at websites for CCW instruction that class size is only about one to four folks. It would make sense that an instructor would want it limited given what is being taught. Someone couldn't sit in the back and nod off. Maybe it's a rule, I don't know.

[ 09. October 2015, 19:01: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
no one has suggested bullet-proof clothing, and schools are generally gun free zones.
Someone, several someones have suggested. I won't comment about schools being gun free zones.

The Need for Bulletproof vests in Schools

Bullet proof backpacks for kids

Huff Post: With School Shootings Routine, Parents Turn To Bulletproof Backpacks, Child Clothing
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
I stand corrected.

I missed out on that particular flavor of crazy fear-mongering (which, again, makes it more difficult to get anything productive done).

How many shooting on campuses are we up to today?
 
Posted by Josiah Crawley (# 18481) on :
 
Another shooting at a US University [Frown]


ABC reports here
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
Still fewer shootings and killings than there were in Baltimore last weekend.

Sigh.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Our secretary just recently obtained her concealed carry permit. Her certificate states

"In delivering this course, I attest that I have complied with the requirements of 12 NCAC 09F .0105 for Concealed Carry Handgun Training and that the student named above has received at least eight hours of classroom instruction, with at least two hours on North Carolina law on concealed handguns, handgun safety and use of deadly force, and that the student has passed a written examination. I also attest that the student named has taken a proficiency examination in which the student has fired at least 30 rounds of ammunition at a target with at least 10 rounds fired from the 3 yard line, 10 rounds from the 5 yard line, and 10 rounds from the 7 yard line, and at least 21 of the 30 rounds fired hit the target. I further attest that the student named is competent with a handgun and knowledgeable in the laws governing the carrying of a concealed handgun and use of deadly force."
So, according to that "competent with a handgun" is a demonstrated ability, at relatively close range in a controlled situation, to hit an unspecified target 70% of the time. If that target was the size of a dime it would be impressive. If it's the human torso targets you see on all the TV cop shows that doesn't seem all that great.

If the aim of concealed carry is to give you a gun for self-defence, then with the added adrenaline and emotions of being in a situation where drawing a gun may be appropriate reducing that accuracy rate that would mean at least 30% of any bullets you fire (probably a good deal more) would hit something (or someone) other than your assailant. And, that assumes you keep up the training to let off a few rounds at the range regularly so that your accuracy on getting the certificate doesn't fall off.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, according to that "competent with a handgun" is a demonstrated ability, at relatively close range in a controlled situation, to hit an unspecified target 70% of the time. If that target was the size of a dime it would be impressive. If it's the human torso targets you see on all the TV cop shows that doesn't seem all that great.
I don't know what the target was. I suspect it would probably be an outline of a torso and head. I'll ask my secretary. I'd expect she'd have no problem, knowing that her dad taught her when she was young and she and her husband like to go to ranges.

quote:
If the aim of concealed carry is to give you a gun for self-defence
It isn't, as far as I can tell. Keep in mind that this is a concealed weapon permit. You don't need a permit to openly carry. It's a permit to hide a pistol you are carrying.

quote:
then with the added adrenaline and emotions of being in a situation where drawing a gun may be appropriate reducing that accuracy rate that would mean at least 30% of any bullets you fire (probably a good deal more) would hit something (or someone) other than your assailant. And, that assumes you keep up the training to let off a few rounds at the range regularly so that your accuracy on getting the certificate doesn't fall off.
Yeah, pretty much. Keep in mind the short distances you are tested on. I believe you'd have a very hard time justifying shooting someone beyond those distances unless there was additional information available, such as the assailant having a gun or some other reason that you would be at risk of serious harm even at such a distance.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
The reality is that this ship has *long* sailed off into the sunset.
The reality is that other countries and other cultures have shown it is perfectly possible. The reality is that all of the statistics of the USA in regards to gun ownership and gun deaths are off the chart compared to the rest of the "First World".

The reality is that your country is completely fucked up on this particular issue and yet continues to insist, in the American exceptionalist way, that it's in a perfectly normal situation.

Seriously, when I see people confronting Obama with signs about how gun control is wrong and how gun free zones are kill zones, I wonder just how insular these people must be to not be aware that their wonderful arm-bearing society is the most colossally murderous country in the developed world.

Seriously? Gun free zones are kill zones? These people are trying to tell me that because the odds of me ever seeing a gun in this city are miniscule, I walk the streets in fear? Do they believe that Canberra's crime rates are worse than a comparably-sized US city?

In short, are they batshit insane?

If you're telling me that, after a couple of generations of NRA power, the USA is simply incapable of righting the ship and becoming a society that treats guns in a rational manner, then I feel incredibly sorry for you all.

[ 10. October 2015, 04:00: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
By the way, I did a quick bit of googling just to see what data I could find.

St Louis is about the same size as Canberra. Because of the way cities are defined in the US, this is only the city proper and not the metropolitan area.

Homicide rate in St Louis in 2014: 49.93 per 100,000. That appears to equate to just over 150 murders for the year.

I don't have the data for the last couple of years here, but before that our worst ever year was 7.

Yeah, the lack of guns puts me in serous danger. [Roll Eyes]


National figures are 4.7 per 100,000 in the United States in 2012, versus 1.1 per 100,000 in Australia in the same year.

But yeah, there are actually a few more guns in some other bits of Australia. A rational, sane person might notice that this seems to increase the rate a bit, not decrease it.

It seems to me that if you want to find the mentally ill people in America and keep the guns away from them, one need look no further than those gun-owners who believe gun control is bad and makes people less safe.

[ 10. October 2015, 04:14: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Responsible firearm ownership is possible. I've owned a few. No one's been injured by them. My friends and relatives have owned a crap-ton. No one injured there either.[1]
[1] Obviously, anecdata. But it makes the point that one can indeed own firearms without them killing anyone.
I thought hard about whether to come back to this. But I'm going to.

Your friends and relatives. Well, that's handy, because you can decide who to label as "friends".

How about people you know? How about your community?

How about this community.

Because while it's a bit painful to bring it up, I think it's important to bring it up. A Shipmate got hold of a gun and 4 people ended up dead.

Did anyone think she'd do that? Did everyone come out afterwards and say "well, yeah, she was one of those people we want to keep guns away from"?

I'm not arguing that it's impossible to own a gun without killing anyone. I'm arguing that the proliferation of guns increases the chances of it going wrong. I'm arguing that you completely fucking fail at risk analysis.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Just popping in briefly to say that jlg injured 3 people, but only killed herself.
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
We also had Geneieve (sp) who was shot and killed [Tear]

Huia
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
Thanks, Huia. Link to Genevičve's thread here.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Yes, thanks, Huia. I remembered that, but not her name. IIRC, was shot by a mentally-ill homeless person, off meds or something?

[Votive] for everyone, everywhere, on either end of a gun, and their loved ones.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Just popping in briefly to say that jlg injured 3 people, but only killed herself.
Apologies for the mistake.

That thread is apt, in that at the bottom of the page Comet says "WE ARE ALL CAPABLE". And that's pretty much the point I'm making.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:


If you're telling me that, after a couple of generations of NRA power, the USA is simply incapable of righting the ship and becoming a society that treats guns in a rational manner, then I feel incredibly sorry for you all.
Do you mean that?

Because we-- we being the American members of that community you mentioned upthread-- are in pretty deep shit.

Specifically, according to local news there was a big spike in gun sales nationally-- in response to Obama's call for gun control. Repeat: Obama simply mentioned the need for better gun registration laws, and people nationwide retaliated by stocking up.

That is what keeps happening-- that is what to open carry in shopping malls was about. "If you even discuss the matter, we will load up."
Jbohn's self soothing about "nobody he knows" getting hurt is pretty dim and complacent, but it's not like all the gun nuts are gonna find each other to kill off, either. We're all stuck in the middle of it.

It feels like civil war is looming in our backyard. It is frightening.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Specifically, according to local news there was a big spike in gun sales nationally-- in response to Obama's call for gun control. Repeat: Obama simply mentioned the need for better gun registration laws, and people nationwide retaliated by stocking up.
Seriously? I know you know this, but that just doesn't make any sense at all.

Now, I can see how if someone has it in their head that they are capable of using a gun in defence of themselves and others (and, the number of things I've seen American friends posted on FB from professionals - soldiers who have seen action - that demolish that conjecture puts that fallacy in it's place) then there is some logic that more of them would seek the licenses to have a gun with them at all times. Simply in response to the media showing how many guns are flooding the country and the frequency with which they are used heightening the sense of danger. But, that wouldn't need many new guns to be bought I'd have thought - presumably people who think like that already have at least one (in their mind) suitable weapon to carry around with them.

But, to stock up on guns and ammunition because you think they're going to be taken away? Are they planning armed rebellion against their own democratically elected government? Do they think the few hours they manage to put in at the rifle range will give them the skills to take on the Marine Corps? Do they think their neighbours will thank them for turning their suburban neighbourhood into a war zone?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Allow me a moment of liberal paranoia-- I think They ( whoever the fuck they are) are trying to provoke a situation where the public is threatened to the point that the government HAS to step in, and then They are justified in starting an actual rebellion. A nationwide Waco.

Not exactly the kind of thought that gives you sweet dreams.

[ 10. October 2015, 08:23: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
The NIGGAH'S try to take our guns away!
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Still fewer shootings and killings than there were in Baltimore last weekend.

Sigh.
Are we comparing a few too many with a lot too many?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Still fewer shootings and killings than there were in Baltimore last weekend.

Sigh.
Are we comparing a few too many with a lot too many?
Yes, it sounds like one tribe suggesting that the next tribe along is lacking fervour because they only sacrificed twenty children to Moloch.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
Thanks, Huia. Link to Genevičve's thread here.
I seem to recall that the murderer was a homeless man who camped out in the woods near the church and regularly was given food boxes by the church. How the hell someone could obtain a gun when he had no money for food or lodging is beyond me.


[Votive] Genevičve
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Ben Carson, a candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, blamed the Holocaust on Nazi gun control.

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Ben Carson, a candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, blamed the Holocaust on Nazi gun control.

[Roll Eyes]
Oh well, I suppose we can be grateful he's not denying it.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Still fewer shootings and killings than there were in Baltimore last weekend.

Sigh.
Are we comparing a few too many with a lot too many?
Yes, it sounds like one tribe suggesting that the next tribe along is lacking fervour because they only sacrificed twenty children to Moloch.
Yeah, I have no idea what the point of that comment was. Good analogy.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
The reality is that this ship has *long* sailed off into the sunset.
The reality is that other countries and other cultures have shown it is perfectly possible.
IN THOSE CULTURES. Such studies cannot possibly prove that they can be generalized to the US.

quote:
Yeah, the lack of guns puts me in serous danger. [Roll Eyes]
I believe the argument concerns the relative lack of guns in gun-free-zones in a heavily-armed country. Which the US is, and Australia is not. Your comparison is meaningless.
 
Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :
 
Is the culture of the US so fundamentally different to the UK or Australia that changing attitudes and legislation around firearms is genuinely unthinkable?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Put it this way-- the first step is getting people to see it is not unthinkable.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
Is the culture of the US so fundamentally different to the UK or Australia that changing attitudes and legislation around firearms is genuinely unthinkable?
It won't be easy. The USA came into being through an armed insurrection which overthrew the then government. Less than a century later it went through a colossal internal war that all-but split the country. A good deal of its territory had to be taken and maintained at gunpoint. It has, for most of its history, been at war.

I think it's fair to say that Americans have a different attitude to firearms than do Australians and the British. Whether that should lead to so many owning firearms of just about every class is another matter.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Still fewer shootings and killings than there were in Baltimore last weekend.

Sigh.
Are we comparing a few too many with a lot too many?
Yes, it sounds like one tribe suggesting that the next tribe along is lacking fervour because they only sacrificed twenty children to Moloch.
No, I'm just tired of the media's "white woman panic" (their tendency to only report on issues and see them as a problem when they start affecting white women).

And the sudden chorus of voices calling for the politicians to "Do something! Do something now!"

IME, most hastily written laws are bad laws with horrendous unintended consequences.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Why was it necessary for you to veil that quite valid point in secrecy?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Oh FFS. Our news (that's the news in the UK) has been, for months, been about black men, shot dead by your mainly white police force.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
It not just that, (ffs). It's that black and Latino people often wind up in the kind of glorified ghettos I have been describing, that they already have "da gunz" as Martin so charmingly put it, but since they are using them on each other, the media somehow neglects to report these in relation to the nation's gun control problem. When my nephew shot himself and his girlfriend, there was a one paragraph report you could only find buried in the appendix material of the local newspaper's online site, and by the time I found it the comments were already swamped with people exhaulting in the news that those " beaner bangers" were killing each other off.

Saysay is right about the disparity, but it doesn't really bolster her case that gun control is a useless venture.

That's another reason shootingtracker is a great idea-- it allows underreported stories to be reported.

[ 10. October 2015, 18:24: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Specifically, according to local news there was a big spike in gun sales nationally-- in response to Obama's call for gun control. Repeat: Obama simply mentioned the need for better gun registration laws, and people nationwide retaliated by stocking up.

That is what keeps happening-- that is what to open carry in shopping malls was about. "If you even discuss the matter, we will load up."
I realize that the Left is not a monolith. But there really are people on the far left who talk about confiscating guns or Australia and how something similar should be possible in the US. And then people in the moderate left insist that no one is talking about confiscating guns, we're just talking about reasonable gun control legislation, registration, etc. in a 'don't believe your lying ears' move. Which makes people nervous.

As I said earlier, the right does with gun control what the left does with abortion: they act like any restriction, no matter how sensible, is a step onto the slippery slope leading to an inevitable ban.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, to stock up on guns and ammunition because you think they're going to be taken away? Are they planning armed rebellion against their own democratically elected government?
Possibly. The president has admitted that he has given a lot of consideration to passing gun control through an executive order rather than through the legislative process. IME the kind of people who do this already feel like they are not represented in the democratic process. As far as I can tell, they want to make it clear that the people will not stand for much more expansion of executive power.

quote:
Do they think the few hours they manage to put in at the rifle range will give them the skills to take on the Marine Corps? Do they think their neighbours will thank them for turning their suburban neighbourhood into a war zone?
Again, IME, most of these people are rural, not suburban. And an awful lot of them are former military themselves, and they believe that many in the military would go AWOL rather than enforce an unlawful order to confiscate guns.

Granted, I also know one former army guy who is stockpiling weapons in preparation for the inevitable zombie apocalypse, which makes me feel real safe...
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Oh FFS. Our news (that's the news in the UK) has been, for months, been about black men, shot dead by your mainly white police force.
Those are two completely different issues. How many shootings not involving middle class white people (particularly women) have made the national or international news?

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Why was it necessary for you to veil that quite valid point in secrecy?
Sorry. Didn't realize I was veiling anything in secrecy.

Intellectually I know that people on the Ship aren't necessarily participating in the same conversations off the ship as I am, but I don't necessarily know which conversations they are participating in. Or what I need to say versus what will get me smacked for being condescending or mansplaining.

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Saysay is right about the disparity, but it doesn't really bolster her case that gun control is a useless venture.
I'm fairly certain I haven't said that it's a useless venture. In fact, I'm fairly certain I said that putting certain sensible gun control restrictions in place now might have a positive long term effect but won't necessarily lead to any kind of immediate drop in these kinds of shootings because of the number of guns already on the ground. Which is why changing the culture not just the law is necessary.

Mostly I'm just objecting to people in other countries telling us to just do what they did, as if the US shared their exact same culture.

[ 10. October 2015, 18:41: Message edited by: saysay ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Oh, I see. You wanted to phrase it in such a way to imply the main problem was "white women", and not "16 year old Chicano boys getting their hands on a firearm."
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
.It won't be easy. The USA came into being through an armed insurrection which overthrew the then government. Less than a century later it went through a colossal internal war that all-but split the country. A good deal of its territory had to be taken and maintained at gunpoint. It has, for most of its history, been at war. ...
Don't forget slavery and the genocide of indigenous peoples. Guns made those possible too.
 
Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

Mostly I'm just objecting to people in other countries telling us to just do what they did, as if the US shared their exact same culture. [/QB]
I don't think any non-US person is saying that the US should do exactly the same thing. But they are pointing out that the process is possible, and that these are some of the ways that worked for us (to a greater or lesser extent of working).

Far be it for me to make a suggestion, but in my view your objections would be better focused on the gun problem rather than how other people, offering constructive thoughts as well as sympathy, phrase things.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Mostly I'm just objecting to people in other countries telling us to just do what they did, as if the US shared their exact same culture.
Well, pretty certain if my culture contained things like sacrificing children to Moloch, you'd be pointing the finger and telling me to stop sacrificing children to Moloch.

Of course, I might be all "but sacrificing children to Moloch is part of my culture. You don't understand how important passing our first born into the flames is. If we didn't do it, we wouldn't be who we are."

But then I'd still be part of a reprehensible death cult and rightly shunned by anyone with an ounce of moral rectitude.

I don't care if you object to me saying "what the fuck is wrong with you people?" Because your gun culture is stupid and dangerous.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Oh, I see. You wanted to phrase it in such a way to imply the main problem was "white women", and not "16 year old Chicano boys getting their hands on a firearm."
Yes, that's it. Because what I said was:

quote:
Still fewer shootings and killings than there were in Baltimore last weekend.

Sigh.
Which clearly implies that I think the main problem is "white women."

That's obviously more logical than thinking that maybe I said that because on one of the days of one of these campus shootings we had a shooting that involved more people and barely made the local (much less national and international) news and I didn't think to say that because the response of everyone else around me IRL was to throw up their hands and say "again?"

Followed by a sigh of despair.

Every time one of these campus shootings happens, am I the only one who has to listen in disbelief to a bunch of people try to tell me that the problem is misogyny and men's belief that they're entitled to sex and if we addressed that and banned guns (or bullets) the shootings would stop?

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I don't care if you object to me saying "what the fuck is wrong with you people?" Because your gun culture is stupid and dangerous.
And where did I object to your saying that?

It is what it is. Wishing don't change that.

(But good for you for not caring and saying something you think is true even if someone somewhere in the world might object or find it offensive. Someday maybe you'll find something you believe in strongly enough that you're willing to stake something important to you on the belief).
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm not arguing that it's impossible to own a gun without killing anyone. I'm arguing that the proliferation of guns increases the chances of it going wrong.
This is obviously true. Widespread availability of guns means that angry people who just want to lash out and hurt people and don't want to live any more might have (or can get) guns. It means that suicidal people are more likely to commit suicide with a gun, because it's (comparatively) easy and certain) and it means that there are going to be more accidental deaths from stupidity.

All these things have a societal component as well as a gun component (before anyone says Switzerland) but for the same society, more guns must correlate with more deaths.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
In prediction of behavioural risks, there are "static" risks and "dynamic" risk factors. In this case the static or situational risk factors are number of guns and things like how they are stored. Dynamic risk factors are the behaviour of people in situations, like perception of risk, thoughts about motives of others, anger, fear etc.

Both are important. No guns = no risk from guns, whatever the dynamic factors within the individual. Any gun availability probably always increases the risk for gun use. It is just a fact. But the dynamic factors, the motives and character of people, and culture: what are these that make America risky besides the static factor of guns being available? I hear things like excessive individualism, frontier myths, slave owning history, but are any of these actually really involved?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
You mean the stuff this guy was writing about?
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."

 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, to stock up on guns and ammunition because you think they're going to be taken away? Are they planning armed rebellion against their own democratically elected government?
Possibly. The president has admitted that he has given a lot of consideration to passing gun control through an executive order rather than through the legislative process. IME the kind of people who do this already feel like they are not represented in the democratic process. As far as I can tell, they want to make it clear that the people will not stand for much more expansion of executive power.
I think the majority of people would consider that the President using executive power to over ride the considerations of Congress, Senate and States would be a less than ideal situation.

But, from what's effectively a straw poll of Americans I know (here, on FB, a few in RL) well over half of them have expressed views strongly in favour of increased gun control legislation. If that's reflected in US society as a whole then the failure of Congress to even discuss the issue means that on this issue over half the nation are excluded from the political process. When Congress fails to act on something that is the expressed interest of over half the US population (assuming my small sample of people is reasonably representative) then the President issuing an executive order to redress that democratic deficit is not, IMO, unreasonable.

I don't know if any of the polling organisations have asked for views on gun control legislation. I've not seen anything reported if they have.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The president has admitted that he has given a lot of consideration to passing gun control through an executive order rather than through the legislative process. IME the kind of people who do this already feel like they are not represented in the democratic process. As far as I can tell, they want to make it clear that the people will not stand for much more expansion of executive power.
These are the same people who elected a do-nothing Congress. Serves them fucking right. If they want legislation that reflects the will of the people, they should stop voting for people who have said flat-out and have demonstrated by their deeds that they don't give a flying fuck about the will of the people, and if elected will do exactly what their rich taskmasters tell them to do.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
From what I can see reported in the media, there is currently a definite pattern in Congressional discussion )OK, maybe squabbling over who should be Speaker breaks the pattern).

The pattern is "what can we do to kill the most people this week?" Cut funding to support medical provision to the poor, that will kill people. That gets debated. Cut welfare funding, that will kill people. Find a foreign nation they don't like and send in "our boys" to put them right, that will cost a fortune (paid to their chums in the arms industry) and kill lots of people. Gun control will save lots of lives, therefore they don't discuss it.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Sweet God. Alan is right. I think I will go back to bed. Forever.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If that's reflected in US society as a whole then the failure of Congress to even discuss the issue means that on this issue over half the nation are excluded from the political process. When Congress fails to act on something that is the expressed interest of over half the US population (assuming my small sample of people is reasonably representative) then the President issuing an executive order to redress that democratic deficit is not, IMO, unreasonable.
Congress discussed gun control legislation after Sandy Hook. They just didn't pass any. Given that there hasn't been a huge change in congresscritters and few if any have indicated that they would change their vote if bills were brought again, there's little point in bringing them to the table again. The votes just aren't there.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
These are the same people who elected a do-nothing Congress. Serves them fucking right. If they want legislation that reflects the will of the people, they should stop voting for people who have said flat-out and have demonstrated by their deeds that they don't give a flying fuck about the will of the people, and if elected will do exactly what their rich taskmasters tell them to do.
Given the amount of money it currently takes to get elected to Congress, who exactly is running for the office who is not going to do exactly what their rich taskmasters tell them to do?

Furthermore, given that Federal Law has gotten so convoluted that I'm told the average American commits three felonies a day (with disturbing implications for the future of free speech), please make a case for why these gun control measures favored by the American people should be done at a federal level rather than a state level. Because you can't trust the stupid hicks in West Virginia to enact sensible gun control legislation and it's too easy to cross state lines with a gun purchased elsewhere? Or...

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The pattern is "what can we do to kill the most people this week?" Cut funding to support medical provision to the poor, that will kill people. That gets debated. Cut welfare funding, that will kill people. Find a foreign nation they don't like and send in "our boys" to put them right, that will cost a fortune (paid to their chums in the arms industry) and kill lots of people. Gun control will save lots of lives, therefore they don't discuss it.
And yet you wonder why people might be stockpiling weapons for possible use against the government?

The people in Washington are rich. The rich in this country frequently really, really hate the poor. Although it is more often the case that they will do anything to maintain their wealth and power and simply view the rest of us as collateral damage. IME, the more they talk about understanding how "privileged" they are, the more true it is. They know they never would have succeeded if the playing field were level. But they want to keep the stuff they have. And they want their children - who likely also won't succeed on a level playing field - to succeed.

To quote Leonard Cohen:

"everybody knows the dice are loaded
everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
everybody knows the war is over
everybody knows the good guys lost
everybody knows the fight is fixed
the poor stay poor and the rich get rich
that's how it goes
and everybody knows"
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The people in Washington are rich. The rich in this country frequently really, really hate the poor. Although it is more often the case that they will do anything to maintain their wealth and power and simply view the rest of us as collateral damage.
Just about to post something that I will hope unify most of us in shared disgust.


Ben Carson throws a fast food drudge under the bus.

"Carson said twice this week that the victims in last week’s Oregon community college shooting should have tried to tackle the gunman and would not “just stand there and let him shoot me.”

(snip)

So what happened when Carson allegedly faced just such a threat? He directed the gunman’s attention to an employee of the fast food restaurant.

“I just said, ‘I believe that you want the guy behind the counter,’” Carson said.

The retired brain surgeon did not explain what happened next."

[ 11. October 2015, 00:19: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Guess old Ben hasn't read many details about the school shootings of the past ten to twenty years, I'm starting to think he doesn't get the paper.

Very few people stand there and let the guy shoot them, unless they're one of the first victims who hasn't had time to realize what's happening. They hide behind desks, climb out windows, play dead, hide under dead bodies, pile furniture in front of doors and run and run. Sometimes a very brave person, usually a teacher, will try to tackle the gunman and, in every case I've read about, that poor person dies quickly.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
The reality is that this ship has *long* sailed off into the sunset.
The reality is that other countries and other cultures have shown it is perfectly possible.
IN THOSE CULTURES. Such studies cannot possibly prove that they can be generalized to the US.
Yeah, you're right. Because here, we had what was the largest mass shooting at the time, and the populace generally got behind the Prime Minister and supported the gun laws we've had for the last 20 years. Not everyone, but most people. Both sides of politics in every State and Territory, for one thing, because it required legislation at that level.

We bought the guns back (bought, not confiscated), and got on with lives that were a little less mass-murdery.

Your culture? People start suggesting that everything would've been fine if only so-and-so had been armed. I imagine they look at Port Arthur and ask why the cafe manager wasn't packing heat. There really is no comparison.

[ 11. October 2015, 00:31: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Reading about Port Arthur for the first time in a while...

He killed 12 people in the first 15-30 seconds. Many of them didn't even register what was happening before they died. This stuff about a good guy with a gun being able to stop a massacre is such bullshit.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

Very few people stand there and let the guy shoot them, unless they're one of the first victims who hasn't had time to realize what's happening. They hide behind desks, climb out windows, play dead, hide under dead bodies, pile furniture in front of doors and run and run. Sometimes a very brave person, usually a teacher, will try to tackle the gunman and, in every case I've read about, that poor person dies quickly.
Not exactly what a
survivor describes in Oregon. The shooter had time to retrieve an envelope from a pack, and ask individual students about their religion before shooting them.

One young man tried to block the shooter from the class. He was shot multiple times but did survive.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This stuff about a good guy with a gun being able to stop a massacre is such bullshit.
Tell that to a woman from Oklahoma who still has her
head attached.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This stuff about a good guy with a gun being able to stop a massacre is such bullshit.
No, it's not bullshit. The problem is that it happens.

If you would like to attempt to persuade me that, statistically speaking, the risks posed by open carry are much greater than the rewards offered, be my guest.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Because you can't trust the stupid hicks in West Virginia to enact sensible gun control legislation and it's too easy to cross state lines with a gun purchased elsewhere? Or...
No "or." It's too easy to cross state lines with a gun purchased elsewhere. That's why all the bullshit about Chicago is bullshit. The Indiana Connection keeps Chicago gangs well supplied with guns despite Chicago's restrictions.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Your culture? People start suggesting that everything would've been fine if only so-and-so had been armed. I imagine they look at Port Arthur and ask why the cafe manager wasn't packing heat. There really is no comparison.
Really? I HAD NO FUCKING IDEA THINGS LIKE THIS HAPPENED. You tool. You fucking tool. You think we don't know this? You think a sizeable chunk of America doesn't know this? You think everybody is like this? Burn yourself out in your orgasm of Anti-American hatred. But maybe you could do it offline? Because we already FUCKING KNOW IT.

Tool.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
No "or." It's too easy to cross state lines with a gun purchased elsewhere. That's why all the bullshit about Chicago is bullshit. The Indiana Connection keeps Chicago gangs well supplied with guns despite Chicago's restrictions.
So why not a federal law saying that if you sell a gun to someone who is not a resident of your state, the gun cannot be given directly to the person but must be shipped to a licensed gun dealer in that person's city/ county and state to be licensed and registered etc. according to the gun laws in that location? Why does the entire damn country need all of the exact same gun laws even though we have a wide variety of gun needs?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
No "or." It's too easy to cross state lines with a gun purchased elsewhere. That's why all the bullshit about Chicago is bullshit. The Indiana Connection keeps Chicago gangs well supplied with guns despite Chicago's restrictions.
So why not a federal law saying that if you sell a gun to someone who is not a resident of your state, the gun cannot be given directly to the person but must be shipped to a licensed gun dealer in that person's city/ county and state to be licensed and registered etc. according to the gun laws in that location?
Excellent plan! You go ahead and get that passed. Will that keep people from Indiana driving across the state line into Chicago and handing over guns to people there? That would be awesome.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Excellent plan! You go ahead and get that passed. Will that keep people from Indiana driving across the state line into Chicago and handing over guns to people there? That would be awesome.
Well, no. But IME a lot of people in Baltimore don't really know that many people who don't live in Baltimore, so it would probably take a while for that particular illegal industry to pop up.

Much better is your plan to (scrolls back through thread). Oh, I see you don't have a plan, in spite of repeated requests by jbohn and me for specific proposals rather than simplistic bitching.

Tell me, are you in the Timothy the Obscure we'll-confiscate-all-the-guns camp or the Democratic Party's Official Camp (we'll pass a bunch of legislation that will make things a huge pain in the ass for legitimate gun owners but wouldn't have actually stopped any of the people who went on shooting sprees from getting guns)?

But your plan of forging the bipartisan consensus necessary to get this federal gun control you seem to so desperately want for the sake of all the poor peasants who can't be expected to know what's in their best interest by insulting and misrepresenting your ideological opponents is sure to work out great!

Oh! I forgot! We'll just elect Hillary, who has already made it clear she'll ram through a bunch of useless legislation by executive order!

That'll work out great for the country.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
You really are a turd, aren't you?

Oh and by the way, you don't pass legislation through executive order. You might want to watch your "SchoolHouse Rock" videos again and learn what the branches of the government are, and what each does.

[ 11. October 2015, 05:18: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
Wow. Just... Do you have any idea what your government has been up to or what, in the case of Hillary, it has promised to do? (if you don't like those sources there are plenty of others that say the same thing - google it).

And would someone please start drawing up the articles of secession? The powers that be have made it clear just how much they hate us, maybe they'll let us go quietly this time.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If that's reflected in US society as a whole then the failure of Congress to even discuss the issue means that on this issue over half the nation are excluded from the political process. When Congress fails to act on something that is the expressed interest of over half the US population (assuming my small sample of people is reasonably representative) then the President issuing an executive order to redress that democratic deficit is not, IMO, unreasonable.
Congress discussed gun control legislation after Sandy Hook. They just didn't pass any. Given that there hasn't been a huge change in congresscritters and few if any have indicated that they would change their vote if bills were brought again, there's little point in bringing them to the table again.
Sandy Hook was almost three years ago. And, there have been too many mass shootings since then. Surely the people are demanding something be done? It shouldn't matter what the congresscritters think. I thought the aim was government of the people, by the people, for the people. Not, government of a small elite, by a small elite, for the small elite. If the people demand that their representatives get off their backsides and enact meaningful gun control legislation surely the task of Congress is then to determine the details. I understand there's an election coming up, that should make the politicians take notice of what the people who will vote them back in (or not) are saying.
quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The pattern is "what can we do to kill the most people this week?" Cut funding to support medical provision to the poor, that will kill people. That gets debated. Cut welfare funding, that will kill people. Find a foreign nation they don't like and send in "our boys" to put them right, that will cost a fortune (paid to their chums in the arms industry) and kill lots of people. Gun control will save lots of lives, therefore they don't discuss it.
And yet you wonder why people might be stockpiling weapons for possible use against the government?
To be honest, yes. You live in a democracy. There should be a large range of options to get government to act for the people that don't involve guns. Has democracy failed then? Are you really heading towards a new civil war, with on one side an assortment of dis-organised militia and on the other a load of well trained people who have sworn on oath "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States". Or do you consider that an armed uprising wouldn't be interpreted as domestic enemies of the US Constitution? Although a reasonable President would presumably hesitate against giving orders to send in the army against his or her own citizens.

[ 11. October 2015, 05:53: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Wow. Just... Do you have any idea what your government has been up to
Yes.

quote:
or what, in the case of Hillary, it has promised to do?
Yes.

quote:
And would someone please start drawing up the articles of secession? The powers that be have made it clear just how much they hate us, maybe they'll let us go quietly this time.
How I wish you'd go. Then maybe we could get back a legislature that works, and obviate the executive orders.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Sandy Hook was almost three years ago. And, there have been too many mass shootings since then. Surely the people are demanding something be done? It shouldn't matter what the congresscritters think. I thought the aim was government of the people, by the people, for the people. Not, government of a small elite, by a small elite, for the small elite.
I fear that ship has sailed, at least until the next revolution. The one where blood runs knee-deep in the streets, all the wrong people get killed, and the super-rich escape in their private jets to Bimini. The drooling Fox-news-watching idiots will shoot up the few remaining tenured university professors, who are of course the "elite" oppressing the good, honest, hardworking Christian NASCAR fans. The Mother Jones readers will wring their hands and tell each other, "See, I told you?" as they are gunned down by the NRA-backed, gun-sucking goon squads.

The diseducated masses will then invite the super-rich to come back, tell them all is forgiven, and forbid them to give them health insurance, since that would be socialism. The super-rich will then hire whoever's left out to the highest Chinese bidder, then all go back to Bimini because their drinks are melting.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Knowing how gradual the law changes were in the UK, can't you start with small changes that might have traction? So following this Oregon shooting a requirement that everyone who has a gun has a licence and to get a licence they have to pass a medical check? Federally applied.

Sandy Hook was your opportunity to get automatic and semi-automatic guns out of circulation.

Requirements for safe storage is another change - so guns must be kept in locked gun cabinets separately from ammunition. But that one is going to take some serious changing of minds, possibly backed by publicity about the number of accidental killings of children (I vaguely remember we had a few of those to trigger one or other changes in the law). (Looking at Alan's dates for previous law changes in the UK, I was very young when the law changed to storage in locked cabinets here. I must have had very strong prohibitions put on touching guns to even remember seeing them propped in cloakrooms.)

How about regular reviews on the law on firearms? The UK has had a recent consultation as the nature of firearms continues to change.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
I agree with Curiosity. Given the scale of gun ownership in America, presumably one single piece of legislation to e.g.ban automatic weapons would involve a massive amount of effort to enforce. It would at least be a start, and in a couple of years the next piece of legislation could ban semi automatics and so on.

Our next legislation will deal with air guns, since they are now the main cause of death and injury.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
There's a meme going around suggesting that gun owners be required to buy liability insurance, just like car owners. That (or the buyback) would be as good a start as any, in my mind.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
saysay: Wow. Just... Do you have any idea what your government has been up to or what, in the case of Hillary, it has promised to do? (if you don't like those sources there are plenty of others that say the same thing - google it).

And would someone please start drawing up the articles of secession? The powers that be have made it clear just how much they hate us, maybe they'll let us go quietly this time.
I find this fascinating. People really think this way.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Your culture? People start suggesting that everything would've been fine if only so-and-so had been armed. I imagine they look at Port Arthur and ask why the cafe manager wasn't packing heat. There really is no comparison.
Really? I HAD NO FUCKING IDEA THINGS LIKE THIS HAPPENED. You tool. You fucking tool. You think we don't know this? You think a sizeable chunk of America doesn't know this? You think everybody is like this? Burn yourself out in your orgasm of Anti-American hatred. But maybe you could do it offline? Because we already FUCKING KNOW IT.

Tool.
I find it bizarre that you're yelling at me for knowing the same thing that you know. Where the bloody hell did you get the notion that I was attempting to teach you something?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This stuff about a good guy with a gun being able to stop a massacre is such bullshit.
Tell that to a woman from Oklahoma who still has her
head attached.
1 time in 23. It doesn't get presented as 1 time in 23, it gets presented as 23 times in 23. That's the bullshit part.

[ 11. October 2015, 11:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
I confess I have my Google News set to catch anything about road rage, home gun incidents and Pit Bulls, just to fuel my issues. Clearly some here use different key words like, "gun saved lives," "home invader thwarted."

Scroll down for video. SNL skit.

[ 11. October 2015, 12:13: Message edited by: Twilight ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
1 time in 23. It doesn't get presented as 1 time in 23, it gets presented as 23 times in 23. That's the bullshit part.
Are you sure it isn't this that happens more often?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I think for every "brave citizen armed with a gun who stops potential homicide" story there is at least one (probably significantly more than one) "citizen who doesn't know what they're doing accidentally shoots innocent person" story - either like that one with the victim of the crime hit (and, I've seen several of those stories), or there are several stories of someone thinking someone has broken into their home shooting a spouse or child who got up for the bathroom or someone innocently ringing the door bell, or several other scenarios that are possible either involving bullets not hitting their target (yep, 30% at close range on a target range not hitting the target is good enough for a permit to pack heat) or mistakenly thinking someone innocent is a bad guy.

So, I suppose the question is do the number of lives potentially saved by the very occasional "brave citizen" greater than those lost because someone carrying a gun for self or other protection gets it wrong?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This stuff about a good guy with a gun being able to stop a massacre is such bullshit.
Tell that to a woman from Oklahoma who still has her
head attached.
1 time in 23. It doesn't get presented as 1 time in 23, it gets presented as 23 times in 23. That's the bullshit part.
Oh, the part that you left completely out of your post? Got it.

And even if you accept the dubious "23" claim, do suppose that matters at all to the woman with a head?

I doubt that it does.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think for every "brave citizen armed with a gun who stops potential homicide" story there is at least one (probably significantly more than one) "citizen who doesn't know what they're doing accidentally shoots innocent person" story - either like that one with the victim of the crime hit....
The article doesn't make it clear that this is what happened.

More likely I would suggest that the shooter was targeting the carjackers in the first place, thus their hurry to jack a car and get away, and didn't give a shit who he hit.

"Good guys" with guns by definition don't collect their casings and flee the scene.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
So, your conclusion is that this particular story doesn't support the premise that people should be armed to protect themselves and others.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I find it bizarre that you're yelling at me for knowing the same thing that you know. Where the bloody hell did you get the notion that I was attempting to teach you something?
I guess from the fact that you keep saying it over and over, in the most in-your-face and jingoistic way you can, even though nearly every American here keeps agreeing with you.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Agreed. Like I said, if your primary motivator is compassion and solidarity, it's really not coming across. Your disgust with "YOUR nation" is really coming across, and what I guess you are saying is your " agreement" is being delivered with a huge measure of "Can't You People get it to through Your thick skulls?"

Alan, on the other hand ,is saying pretty much exactly the same things you are saying, but when he responds to me it feels like he is responding to " Kelly, who I have known for 13 years" rather than " American Cultural Stand -in #24"

A few days ago I wrote something along the lines of, dude, why don't you donate to the NRA, and help them on their quest to eliminate 10, 000 American Idiots a year? Less stupidity in the world for you to suffer. I deleted it. You know why? I coudn't reconcile the statement I was making with the orfeo I know, of whom I am very fond. I don't think you are returning the favor-- I think you are laying presumed collective cultural traits on people you should know better by now.

There are perhaps 15-20 American shipmates out of the 100 or so Shipmates of other nations that participate on the boards every day, and therefore it would bevery easy for the rest of you to overwhelm us and make us the locus of your cultural frustration.

Well justified cultural frustration, I might add-- what the government, the media, the military, McDonald's, Hollywood, fucking Disney, etc has done to the world disgusts me.

But that's just the point. What does it serve to treat people you know as generic national representatives? And to repeatedly step over the fact that they are AGREEING with you, instead of devoting a sentence or two to acknowledge the agreement exists? It certainly does not facilitate mutual listening.

More than that, though, if there is one thing that has well and truly poisoned America, and can be directly related to just about every moment of cultural shame we bear, it is the historic tendancy to Otherize. Our current war in the Middle East, slavery, the Cold War, internment camps, reservations, you name it-- the very thing that greased the wheels of all of these things was our collective decision that some people were righter, purer, more entitled, more human than others. The whole reason the Black Lists happened in the 50's is that we decided we were so much better than those disgusting Commies that we could jettison the very liberty we preached in favor of punishing the Other.

I don't think Otherization is an American tendancy, though, I think it is a human one. It is the one addiction we can't seem to shake. And it is pure poison. If you (generic you)love your country, if you prize your cultural values, resist the urge to Otherize, because that shit has the historical record of destroying everything good in a people.

[ 11. October 2015, 16:07: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, your conclusion is that this particular story doesn't support the premise that people should be armed to protect themselves and others.
I don't draw any conclusions from the story, and I don't seek to support any premise.

That people should be armed to protect themselves and others is not a premise anyway, it is a point of fact. Just like that many criminals are armed to commit crimes and protect their jurisdictions thereof.

All the licensing requirements, background checks, and insurance mandates will not change this dynamic in the US. Just like all the similar requirements with regard to automobiles don't stop accidents, criminal operation, and mass death and injury.

[ 11. October 2015, 16:01: Message edited by: romanlion ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
All the licensing requirements, background checks, and insurance mandates will not change this dynamic in the US. Just like all the similar requirements with regard to automobiles don't stop accidents, criminal operation, and mass death and injury.
Except that it does, so that your analogy works entirely against your point of view.

(Not stop entirely, but massively mitigate. Knock yourself out, google the statistics. They're quite boggling.)
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
For one thing, if you fuck up enough to lose your car insurance, you better believe you start driving like a geriatic nun. Before they confiscate your car, that is.
And I think "massive mitigation"'is our goal. What country anywhere has achieved " zero gun violence"?

[ 11. October 2015, 16:37: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
There's a pastor in Florida who is arguing that being pro-gun is incompatible with being pro-life, and with Christianity. Walt Disney's niece made a movie about him: Move.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
For one thing, if you fuck up enough to lose your car insurance, you better believe you start driving like a geriatic nun. Before they confiscate your car, that is.
This may be true for people inclined to try and obey the laws, but there is no shortage of people operating cars every day with no license, no insurance, and some percentage of those are most certainly drunk.

Much the same as I would guess that a large percentage of gun crime in urban areas with the worst rates is committed by people who couldn't care less about a background check or licensing requirement. All the reasonable gun control measures in the world won't change the street level reality in Detroit or Chicago one iota.

[ 11. October 2015, 16:46: Message edited by: romanlion ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
there is no shortage of people operating cars every day with no license, no insurance, and some percentage of those are most certainly drunk.
I don't know about you, but over here, we call those people criminals. They get prosecuted, fined, gaoled, and their cars crushed. They don't have to have had any accidents or run anyone over. They just get pulled, and then arrested and charged and processed through the courts.

I kind of assumed that also happened in the USA, but clearly not.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Of course they do. I have no idea what romanlion is trying to prove. That car insurance mandates are useless?

[ 11. October 2015, 17:13: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Much the same as I would guess that a large percentage of gun crime in urban areas with the worst rates is committed by people who couldn't care less about a background check or licensing requirement.
I would say this argues very eloquently for making guns rare and hard to obtain. You can't get a gun illegally if you can't get a gun.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:


They don't have to have had any accidents or run anyone over. They just get pulled, and then arrested and charged and processed through the courts.

This bit, especially.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Eventually, taking guns out of circulation and arresting those involved in gun crime, over in the UK, firearms offences in 2012/2013 were 0.2% of the total crimes reported, there were 30 fatalities resulting from offences with firearms, and 8,135 offences with firearms - both last figures down 15% on the previous year.

That's 16 years after Dunblane in 1996 and the subsequent amendments to the Firearms Act (1997). Nobody said it was an immediate effect.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Much the same as I would guess that a large percentage of gun crime in urban areas with the worst rates is committed by people who couldn't care less about a background check or licensing requirement.
I would say this argues very eloquently for making guns rare and hard to obtain. You can't get a gun illegally if you can't get a gun.
You and I both know that this is not about to happen. Guns are ubiquitous and easy to obtain. Perhaps only slightly less so than cocaine and heroin, which are both completely prohibited everywhere at all times.

Something that could work almost immediately would be a little enforcement of existing laws.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Much the same as I would guess that a large percentage of gun crime in urban areas with the worst rates is committed by people who couldn't care less about a background check or licensing requirement.[/QB]
Actually I'm not too sure of the premise, a fairly sizable percentage probably are 'law abiding' until something goes wrong.
A sizable higher percentage will have a sensible desire to minimize crimes/profit. And as such although they may nominally 'not give a toss'. It may well shift the balance.
And the others, the facilitators, the enablers, the fifth column, who can at the moment, even afterwards, say 'I did nothing wrong, how was I to know he'd...', they probably will give a stuff. And that probably covers a sufficient majority.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Sandy Hook was almost three years ago. And, there have been too many mass shootings since then. Surely the people are demanding something be done? It shouldn't matter what the congresscritters think. I thought the aim was government of the people, by the people, for the people. Not, government of a small elite, by a small elite, for the small elite. If the people demand that their representatives get off their backsides and enact meaningful gun control legislation surely the task of Congress is then to determine the details.


Aye, there's the rub:

quote:
“Eye-popping majorities of Democratic, Republican, and independent voters back . . . boilerplate measures,” Noah Rothman recorded yesterday in Commentary. “But when asked if voters prefer stricter gun control measures, only a majority of Democrats agreed. Just one-third of independent voters and less than one-quarter of GOP survey respondents welcomed new gun control measures.” If the polls are to be believed, this reluctance is in part the product of a lack of trust in the federal government; in part the result of a belief that gun laws don’t actually work; and in part the result of harsh demarcation lines that have been draw in the broader culture wars.
If you can convince our ADD immediate-gratification oriented culture that gun control measures would have an effect in the long term, you're a better man than I.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Much the same as I would guess that a large percentage of gun crime in urban areas with the worst rates is committed by people who couldn't care less about a background check or licensing requirement.
Actually I'm not too sure of the premise, a fairly sizable percentage probably are 'law abiding' until something goes wrong.
Not likely.

In many of these places mere possession of the gun is a felony. That eliminates "law abiding" before anything even has a chance to go wrong.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Where the &^%$ were these polls taken? And by whom? The same people that claim Trumpmania is sweeping the nation?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Agreed. Like I said, if your primary motivator is compassion and solidarity, it's really not coming across.
*reads sign above board*

Ahem. You'll find compassion and solidarity down the corridor in All Saints.

Seriously? You expect me to give you all a comforting group hug down here? No, here is where I rant against the sheer obstinate stupidity of it all.

As for YOUR culture, again, I can't fucking help it that the English language chose some centuries back to forego the ability to easily distinguish between second person singular and plural, and there's no fucking way I'm going to keep finding awkward ways of describing American culture as not being connected to an American.

But it's complete nonsense to think that I am treating you as "generic national representatives". Do you really think I expect you to represent anything other than yourself? I think you're Americans. I don't think you're America.

[ 11. October 2015, 22:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
From the herpderp files: Facebook comment:

If the early Christians had had guns, Christ would still be alive today.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
[Killing me]
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Of course they do. I have no idea what romanlion is trying to prove. That car insurance mandates are useless?
We carry uninsured and underinsured coverage.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, your conclusion is that this particular story doesn't support the premise that people should be armed to protect themselves and others.
I don't draw any conclusions from the story, and I don't seek to support any premise.
Yes, I know that particular story wasn't raised in support of your premise. But, you're still supporting a premise. Namely, you responded to orfeo
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This stuff about a good guy with a gun being able to stop a massacre is such bullshit.
With an example of a "good guy with a gun" stopping a serious crime, saysay provided another example. Your premise appears to be the opposite of orfeo - specifically you are claiming that "a good guy with a gun being able to stop a massacre is not bullshit". Or at least that's how it appears to me. That is certainly the premise of those in the NRA and elsewhere who have repeatedly said that the solution to gun violence is for more good guys to be armed.

Now, I think orfeo overstated his case. As both you and saysay pointed out, the claim that "a good guy with a gun being able to stop a massacre is such bullshit" can be countered by a single example of that happening.

But, IMO the question is much deeper than that and my premise is different from orfeo - although I think we'll both reach the same conclusion on what needs to be done to reduce the rate of deaths from guns in the US. First, I note that there are very few examples of a "good guy with a gun" having any impact on the course of a crime - someone earlier linked to an article in (I think) the Washington Post listing such instances, and there were a few dozen at most over almost 20 years (sorry, I couldn't actually find that post again - it's also possible it was a friend on FB who posted it). Of course, the argument can be made that the more people with concealed (or open) carried weapons then the more chance of an intervention and so that number of incidents of a "good guy with a gun" saving the day would be higher.

My second point would be that that benefit of a "good guy with a gun" saving the day comes at a considerable cost. And, that cost is mostly from two places.

1. "Good guys" aren't so good. They may mean well, but they're only human, not some Hollywood creation. Their aim will not be perfect, if they discharge their weapon there is a high chance they will miss and hit someone else. Given that the chances of them being around just ahead of a mass shooting is very low, the chances are that they will be intervening in a lesser crime - a street mugging, robbery or something where any firearms carried by the criminals would probably not be fired (or, if fired done so for dramatic effect, into the ceiling for example) and so any injuries caused by the "good guy" will be in excess of any the bad guys would have caused. And, added to that the "good guy with a gun" far too often has a lousy sense of judgement. I could link to dozens of examples of someone using their gun on an "intruder" at home, only to find they've shot a family member using the bathroom, teenage daughter sneaking back in late at night, someone ringing their doorbell because their car broke down at the end of their drive ... you should get the point.

The question this part of the cost-benefit analysis is does allowing ordinary "good guys" arm themselves reduce the number of people killed, or increase the number? The evidence is that for every time a "good guy with a gun" intervenes against a criminal another "good guy with a gun" will shoot someone not committing a crime (or, at the very least, not committing a crime liable to cause death or injury to someone else). And, that's even without considering the times a "good guy" flips out and uses that gun for criminal acts or when someone else gets hold of the gun and causes injury accidentally.

2. I said there were two main areas of cost. Here's the second. Letting more "good guys" have guns increases the supply of guns to criminals. The vast majority of guns used by criminals were, at some point, sold legally to someone. The criminals got them through a variety of routes, the most significant being fraudulent purchase from retailers and theft from private owners. If you're going to increase the number of private citizens carrying guns then that will result in it being easier for criminals to obtain guns using fake ids etc. And, it will increase the number of homes where a burglar will find guns they can take. The only sure way to reduce the number of guns used by criminals is to make it harder for them to get guns, which means reducing the number of guns in circulation. Increasing the number of guns in circulation just makes it easier for criminals to get guns.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Do you really think I expect you to represent anything other than yourself? I think you're Americans. I don't think you're America.
Not. Coming. Across.

See? I can pull the one line out of what you said in disregard to everything else you said, too.

I don't expect cuddles in Hell-- I have been a member for 13 years, as I said. But you specifically expressed puzzlement as to why your understanding that we were in agreement didn't read. The answer was the bombastic, accusatory and (in some cases)somewhat vengeful tone you were taking. If you don't want to take that feedback onboard, fine, but understand nobody is going to read your mind and translate your rage dumps exactly the way you want them to. Cutting people slack for shooting off their mouths indiscriminately is DEFINITELY not required in Hell.

[ 12. October 2015, 03:21: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Of course they do. I have no idea what romanlion is trying to prove. That car insurance mandates are useless?
We carry uninsured and underinsured coverage.
OK, In CA it is mandated. You drive without insurance, you get a fix-it ticket, and if it is not fixed in due time, they come for your license. I think that is the kind of system the meme generator was suggesting for guns.

My point above (geriatric nuns) is that financial constraint can be a powerful motivator-- sadly, even when other tactics don't work. So, someone who might gleefully run stop signs if insurance was not a mandate would chill their jets, because if they got pulled over they wouldn't just get the traffic ticket, they might lose the whole car.

Again, if your goal is complete ceasefire-- not much help. But it might be a start at reduction.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Okay, then!
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
See? I can pull the one line out of what you said in disregard to everything else you said, too.
Which is totally cool with me, as the bit you pulled out seems totally consistent with everything else I said.

Also, it saves on scrolling. We don't all need to pull an Ingo with every post.

The purpose of selective quoting is to focus on the bit one is directly replying to. Which is what I'm doing now. If you choose to read that as "he's therefore ignored everything else he hasn't quoted", that's your funeral.

I certainly don't write things expecting people to respond point-by-point to everything I said. It's not actually helpful to do so and makes discussions unmanageable: I had a client a couple of years ago who felt they needed to say they were happy with each and every provision, and towards the end of the project I had to beg them to stop because it was so hard to find the 2 or 3 provisions they weren't happy with (the ones I actually had to do further work on) in between the pages and pages of ones that were okay.

[ 12. October 2015, 07:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Okay, then!
I suppose someone has to say it. Keeping guns away from schools will always be a good thing. But, it doesn't actually address the problem. Which is the next guy who wants his celebrity status and decides to gun down some kids isn't going to worry about breaking the law that says he can't take a gun to within 1000ft of a school.

It still doesn't address the main problem, which is simply too many guns.

Is there any reason no one has suggested a voluntary buy-back? No added legislation or licensing (though ultimately I can't see any way forward without those), but a simple "if you own a gun you don't actually need, we'll buy it from you and see that it's destroyed". It could be funded from several sources - Federal, State, city government, set up as community initiatives (in which case it may be just a hand over without money paid).
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Okay, then!
I suppose someone has to say it. Keeping guns away from schools will always be a good thing. But, it doesn't actually address the problem. Which is the next guy who wants his celebrity status and decides to gun down some kids isn't going to worry about breaking the law that says he can't take a gun to within 1000ft of a school.

It still doesn't address the main problem, which is simply too many guns.
I have to disagree. The problem is that some guns are owned by people who should not have guns, for the greater good of the whole. There are about 300 million guns in the USA which is practically one per man, woman and child, although I'd suggest that most men, women and children are unarmed and the remainder have a number of guns for different purposes.

quote:

Is there any reason no one has suggested a voluntary buy-back? No added legislation or licensing (though ultimately I can't see any way forward without those), but a simple "if you own a gun you don't actually need, we'll buy it from you and see that it's destroyed". It could be funded from several sources - Federal, State, city government, set up as community initiatives (in which case it may be just a hand over without money paid).
I'm sure that the very people who should be disarmed whould be the last to hand over their firearms.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The problem is that some guns are owned by people who should not have guns, for the greater good of the whole.
Yes, and the problem is that you, I and just about everyone else here will have different lists of who should not have guns, and different lists of reasons. Of course, this only accounts for those who are legally allowed to hold a gun, when there are 300 million guns in the country it's very easy to have one illegally - which is where reducing that number substantially helps to make it much harder to illegally have a gun.

quote:
I'm sure that the very people who should be disarmed would be the last to hand over their firearms.
I'm sure that's true as well. But, it would still make a dent in that 300 million guns figure, which is still a step in the right direction.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Is there any reason no one has suggested a voluntary buy-back? No added legislation or licensing (though ultimately I can't see any way forward without those), but a simple "if you own a gun you don't actually need, we'll buy it from you and see that it's destroyed". It could be funded from several sources - Federal, State, city government, set up as community initiatives (in which case it may be just a hand over without money paid).
Here in Arizona:
quote:
Cities that conduct buyback programs to get guns off the street will now be required to re-sell those weapons, according to a new law signed by the governor.
Also, there is nothing to keep those who sell their guns in a buyback program from using that money towards bigger and better guns.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
What about a campaign along the lines of "Real Men don't shoot unarmed kids."
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
From the article Pigwidgeon linked:

quote:
Opponents argued that it sent the wrong message and that the state needed to focus on the broader issue of gun control."
This law is about gun control. It is about nothing else.
The United States of America
A wholly owned subsidiary of the National Rifle Association.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What about a campaign along the lines of "Real Men don't shoot unarmed kids."
Would it be fair to point out that bringing back legalised duelling might actually save lives?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What about a campaign along the lines of "Real Men don't shoot unarmed kids."
Would it be fair to point out that bringing back legalised duelling might actually save lives?
Compulsory legalised duelling could have some merit.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Okay, then!
I suppose someone has to say it. Keeping guns away from schools will always be a good thing. But, it doesn't actually address the problem. Which is the next guy who wants his celebrity status and decides to gun down some kids isn't going to worry about breaking the law that says he can't take a gun to within 1000ft of a school.

It still doesn't address the main problem, which is simply too many guns.

Is there any reason no one has suggested a voluntary buy-back? No added legislation or licensing (though ultimately I can't see any way forward without those), but a simple "if you own a gun you don't actually need, we'll buy it from you and see that it's destroyed". It could be funded from several sources - Federal, State, city government, set up as community initiatives (in which case it may be just a hand over without money paid).
I guess I assumed a buyback program would be voluntary. I brought up the general idea a few pages back, and saysay had a bunch of problem scenarios in response.

Personally I am at the "just try Something" stage. It's just like trying to introduce new actvities at a lesson planning meeting-- there is always 100 reasons not to try something. At some point you just have to pick a course of action and invest in it.

So, if I had excecutive fiat- buyback and mandated liability insurance. Then see what happens from there.

ETA: Arizona seems to be competing with Texas as far as fuck- you laws, sometimes.

[ 12. October 2015, 17:05: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And as to what the church can do, I do like the idea of declaring, from the pulpit, that Jesus would not have carried. You want to be like Christ, or not?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
As an olive branch to orfeo-- he recently posted an article with a screen capture of the $&@&$ing NRA posting a " What Gun would Jesus Carry" status on their Facebook page. (Or was it Twitter?)

Some smartass managed the first response, which was, "A nail gun."

Shock, outrage, and account-- blocking followed. (Also the guy got something like 700 likes before he got caught.)

[ 12. October 2015, 17:25: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
It occurs to me that the national gun control efforts in the US can be compared to the international nuclear arms reduction efforts-- same problems with proliferation, same arguments about minority entities left vulneable without arms, same struggle to get people to see the value in laying down their arms.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Is there any reason no one has suggested a voluntary buy-back? No added legislation or licensing (though ultimately I can't see any way forward without those), but a simple "if you own a gun you don't actually need, we'll buy it from you and see that it's destroyed". It could be funded from several sources - Federal, State, city government, set up as community initiatives (in which case it may be just a hand over without money paid).
If you haven't deduced this from Pigwidgeon's link, we already have them. Most of the places I've lived, they're an annual affair, frequently held in the the months before Christmas. The problem of people using the cash to buy bigger and better firearms is avoided by not paying cash, but by offering a choice of gift cards to stores where people can buy Christmas presents for their loved ones.

Unfortunately it barely makes a dent in the number of guns on the ground.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Would it be fair to point out that bringing back legalised duelling might actually save lives?
When it comes to American culture, there's way too much truth in the movie Fight Club.

Unfortunately we've been moving in the opposite of what I think is a helpful direction, with some school districts going as far as banning the game of tag as being too aggressive and too likely to lead to harm.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And there is no desire to shoot others who might shoot back. These are unmanly and cowardly beings who are only comfortable assailing the unwary -- students, or children, or animals. Dueling -- a fair fight toe to toe -- is the very last thing they want. An opponent able and willing to shoot back would blanch them to their toes.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
(Crosspost-- to saysay's tag comment)

Yeah, if I could ban one stupid school rule, it would be the one where we tell kids not to build excellent upper body strength by climbing up slides. It's stupid and counter productive. If you don't allow reasonable opportunities for rambunctiousness into the rules, kids will find ways to be rambunctious that will take ten years off your life.

"Chase games" are an excellent opportunity to burn off free-floating energy, and to teach the difference between a tag and a punch. If you don't allow kids appropriate venues for filling their mammalian need for physical contact, they wind up snapping and jumping up in the middle of storytime to pummel their friend.

This to say-- yes, we do far too much squelching of people's aggressive energy, and not enough redirecting. But what would redirecting look like on an adult/ national scale?

(What just popped into my head was the WPA.)

[ 12. October 2015, 18:47: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
If you haven't deduced this from Pigwidgeon's link, we already have them. Most of the places I've lived, they're an annual affair, frequently held in the the months before Christmas. The problem of people using the cash to buy bigger and better firearms is avoided by not paying cash, but by offering a choice of gift cards to stores where people can buy Christmas presents for their loved ones.

Unfortunately it barely makes a dent in the number of guns on the ground.
At least hereabouts, this is partly because the amount offered for them is considerably less than what one might get for them at a pawnshop.

Or, for that matter, in an alleyway, cash in hand, no questions asked. For someone looking to sell - why take the smaller amount offered by the police, and trust them when they say they won't surreptitiously take camera footage of who's turning in what (to be used in later prosecution), when you can sell elsewhere for more money and less chance of problems?

I'm told by acquaintances who collect that they've had good luck in offering more money right outside the police station for specific firearms that interested them, though I've no independent corroboration of that.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Arizona seems to be competing with Texas as far as fuck- you laws, sometimes.
Unfortunately, it seems as if we're winning.
[Frown]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

Yeah, if I could ban one stupid school rule, it would be the one where we tell kids not to build excellent upper body strength by climbing up slides.
I don't know how much of that is Elf'n'Safety, and how much is insufficient climbing equipment. (The throughput of a slide is much reduced if people are climbing up.)

quote:
If you don't allow reasonable opportunities for rambunctiousness into the rules, kids will find ways to be rambunctious that will take ten years off your life.
One of the tricks being how to ensure that the rambunctiousness is mutually consensual.


quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The problem of people using the cash to buy bigger and better firearms is avoided by not paying cash, but by offering a choice of gift cards to stores where people can buy Christmas presents for their loved ones.
Except money is fungible. If you give me a gift card to buy something that I would have bought anyway, it's functionally equivalent to giving me cash. If you give me a gift card that anyone in my extended family or circle of friends can use to buy something they would buy anyway, it's equivalent to cash. As a last resort, I can sell it at a discount.

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And there is no desire to shoot others who might shoot back.
Well, no. Why would anyone want that (duels and other nuttiness aside)?

People who want to shoot guns at other people fall into two categories:

1. People who are violent criminals or those who have snapped and want to go on a spree killing.

2. People who want to defend themselves.

Neither group wants a "fair fight". It may well be that the spree killers in group 1 are intending to commit suicide-by-cop, and go down in a hail of bullets and blaze of glory, but they're not interested in doing that until after they've committed their acts of carnage.

People in group 2 aren't interested in trading blow for blow with an attacker - they're interested in stopping whoever's attacking them.

[ 12. October 2015, 19:19: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

Yeah, if I could ban one stupid school rule, it would be the one where we tell kids not to build excellent upper body strength by climbing up slides.
I don't know how much of that is Elf'n'Safety, and how much is insufficient climbing equipment. (The throughput of a slide is much reduced if people are climbing up.)

quote:
If you don't allow reasonable opportunities for rambunctiousness into the rules, kids will find ways to be rambunctious that will take ten years off your life.
One of the tricks being how to ensure that the rambunctiousness is mutually consensual.


To point 1. : climbing up a slide is a specific excercise. Even on elaborately crafted climbing equipment, kids do it. (And the standardized climbing structures in mynstate have a minimum of three slides-- one curly, two straight.) If they can physically do it, and if the only hassle created by it is teachers having more work to do by keeping them off, why are we forbidding an excellent large motor activity? Make a couple right of way rules and let them have at it!

To point 2. If we free teachers up from dumb rules, and if the teachers themselves don't use the playground as a venue to talk about last night's episode of "Hoarders" but as a venue to engage in conversation with the kids (I'm looking at you, Lucy V. ), we will have a chance to teach them the vocabulary (verbal and nonverbal) of consent. " Do you hear him yelling 'ow!'? Do you see her covering her face and backing away? That means they are not having fun. You: ask if he's ok, and you: tell her,' I don't want to play like that! Stop pulling my arms!'"

It's doable.I do it all day long. When I am not stuck enforcing some dumb " down only" slide regulation.

[ 12. October 2015, 19:56: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
To point 2. If we free teachers up from dumb rules, and if the teachers themselves don't use the playground as a venue to talk about last night's episode of "Hoarders" but as a venue to engage in conversation with the kids (I'm looking at you, Lucy V. ), we will have a chance to teach them the vocabulary (verbal and nonverbal) of consent. " Do you hear him yelling 'ow!'? Do you see her covering her face and backing away? That means they are not having fun. You: ask if he's ok, and you: tell her,' I don't want to play like that! Stop pulling my arms!'"

It's doable.I do it all day long. When I am not stuck enforcing some dumb " down only" slide regulation.
Exactly. When I was a kid, girls were allowed to opt out of rambunctious play when we wanted to because we were girls, whereas boys were more likely to face a social penalty (at the very least, being called sissies) for doing the same thing. As long as everyone is clear on the fact that sometimes people (of either gender) don't want to play like that and that's OK, I don't see the problem.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
If they can physically do it, and if the only hassle created by it is teachers having more work to do by keeping them off, why are we forbidding an excellent large motor activity? Make a couple right of way rules and let them have at it!
I was thinking of my own local playground (which has a couple of climbing structures with three slides each.) However, the slides are all different, and so there's often three or four children queueing to go down the preferred slide. Climbing up a slide (slow) with several children waiting to slide down it (quick) is kind of assholey.

I'd be quite happy to declare one slide the "up" slide and avoid traffic flow issues that way.

(My eldest still complains about how she was told not to climb on top of the monkey bars [Smile] )
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
If you haven't deduced this from Pigwidgeon's link, we already have them. Most of the places I've lived, they're an annual affair, frequently held in the the months before Christmas. The problem of people using the cash to buy bigger and better firearms is avoided by not paying cash, but by offering a choice of gift cards to stores where people can buy Christmas presents for their loved ones.

Unfortunately it barely makes a dent in the number of guns on the ground.
At least hereabouts, this is partly because the amount offered for them is considerably less than what one might get for them at a pawnshop.
A pawnshop? Why would a pawnbroker part with cash for a gun? Surely they can't resell it, unless of course they're part of a licensed gun dealership. Presumably they wouldn't have access to what's needed to run background checks and ensure the buyer has a valid permit.

Or, am I just being naive and that it's perfectly legal to buy a gun no questions asked?

quote:
For someone looking to sell - why take the smaller amount offered by the police, and trust them when they say they won't surreptitiously take camera footage of who's turning in what (to be used in later prosecution), when you can sell elsewhere for more money and less chance of problems?
I wouldn't have thought of a buy-back as something for "someone looking to sell". More of a means for citizens concerned that they have dangerous items in their homes to get rid of them simply and safely - I know that if I owned guns the last thing I'd want is for them to get into the hands of criminals, and the peace of mind of handing them to the police for destruction would be an important consideration. But, that's just me.

In the UK I don't think we've had buy backs (I may be wrong about that). But, we do have regular amnesties where people can hand in illegally held weapons (guns and knives mostly, the odd sword sometimes turns up). AIUI the amnesty covers the crime of holding the weapon illegally, by handing it over you won't be prosecuted for having it in the first place. The amnesty doesn't cover any crimes that the weapon may have been used for. Although it would take a particularly dumb criminal to use a gun in a bank robbery, fire it, and then hand it into the police to check the recovered bullet to the gun. Any criminal with half a brain would surely know it's easy to match bullets to guns and if the gun was fired during a crime they'd dump the gun in the nearest body of deep water as fast as possible.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

In the UK I don't think we've had buy backs (I may be wrong about that).
There were buybacks in 1997/1998, to compensate owners of weapons that were banned post-Dunblane. This is only right and proper - if we make your legally-owned property illegal, we should compensate you for it.

I'm pretty sure there was one after Hungerford and the resulting legal changes as well.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

In the UK I don't think we've had buy backs (I may be wrong about that).
There were buybacks in 1997/1998, to compensate owners of weapons that were banned post-Dunblane. This is only right and proper - if we make your legally-owned property illegal, we should compensate you for it.

I'm pretty sure there was one after Hungerford and the resulting legal changes as well.
You're right, I should Google before posting ... though, still not finding any post-Hungerford buy-back references (but, the restrictions on the higher power rifles affected very few people as they weren't a commonly held weapon - if you're going hunting you don't want to use a gun that will spread your dinner over several hundred feet).

It is, of course, right and proper to provide some compensation when something that had been legally owned becomes illegal. I suppose the UK had it easier doing that buy-back, we would have known how many guns were coming in and therefore know the cost upfront. If you try that without a list of legally held guns there's a bit of guess work involved in working out what the cost will be.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
On a saner note from Texas #CocksNotGlocks has students doing open carry of dildos.

quote:
“You’re carrying a gun to class?”.... “Yeah well I’m carrying a HUGE DILDO. Just about as effective at protecting us from sociopathic shooters, but much safer for recreational play.”

 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
You might also enjoy Gunlickers [NSFW], a series by artist Kate Kretz. It's kind of a dildo gun thing. Art...

[Hostly edit - while CocksNotGlocks should give the reader a bit of a clue, Gunlickers may not. Technically, artistic portraits of men fellating weaponry isn't porn, but could certainly be misconstrued as porn. So I'm tagging it.]

[ 13. October 2015, 08:03: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
On a saner note from Texas #CocksNotGlocks has students doing open carry of dildos.

quote:
“You’re carrying a gun to class?”.... “Yeah well I’m carrying a HUGE DILDO. Just about as effective at protecting us from sociopathic shooters, but much safer for recreational play.”
You know things are nuts when student stunts seem sensible.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
[Big Grin] Aren't they awesome?

Like I said, some people find 500 reasons not to do something, and some people take a dildo to class.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
You might also enjoy Gunlickers, a series by artist Kate Kretz. It's kind of a dildo gun thing. Art...
NSFW warning would have been nice here.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
You mean, something described as "dildo gun thing art" hadn't suggested it might not be work safe?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Hostly furry hat on

Thanks for bringing that to my attention, MT. I've tagged the Gunlickers link as NSFW, for the reasons I've stated in my edit.

DT
HH

Hostly furry hat off
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A pawnshop? Why would a pawnbroker part with cash for a gun? Surely they can't resell it, unless of course they're part of a licensed gun dealership. Presumably they wouldn't have access to what's needed to run background checks and ensure the buyer has a valid permit.

Or, am I just being naive and that it's perfectly legal to buy a gun no questions asked?
No - I wasn't clear enough, that's all. [Biased]

In the case of a pawnshop, they need a federal firearms license (most, if not all, have them) and to conduct the appropriate background checks, etc. For a firearm that's legit, they still pay better than the buybacks do - if I were wishing to get rid of a firearm in my home, assuming I have no reason to suspect it's dodgy, I'd likely go to the pawnshop and get a better price.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
For someone looking to sell - why take the smaller amount offered by the police, and trust them when they say they won't surreptitiously take camera footage of who's turning in what (to be used in later prosecution), when you can sell elsewhere for more money and less chance of problems?
I wouldn't have thought of a buy-back as something for "someone looking to sell". More of a means for citizens concerned that they have dangerous items in their homes to get rid of them simply and safely - I know that if I owned guns the last thing I'd want is for them to get into the hands of criminals, and the peace of mind of handing them to the police for destruction would be an important consideration. But, that's just me.
For some, it probably is. For others, they're looking for the best price available, and the buyback isn't it, by any means.

I'm not saying buybacks are somehow wrong and evil, just generally ineffective from what I can see.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
For some, it probably is. For others, they're looking for the best price available, and the buyback isn't it, by any means.
It would probably be the best price for a particular pistol I have. The money could help pay for a particular bullpup shotgun I'm wanting to buy.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
You might also enjoy Gunlickers, a series by artist Kate Kretz. It's kind of a dildo gun thing. Art...
NSFW warning would have been nice here.
Is a thread titled "Fucking Guns" safe for work?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
NSFW warning would have been nice here.
Is a thread titled "Fucking Guns" safe for work?
This tangent is getting distinctly Styxish. If you wish to debate when nsfw tags are appropriate on the Ship, including Hell, then you're always welcome to open a thread there.

DT
HH
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Regarding the pawnshop v. buyback. I do not know what the buyback programmes are offering, but a pawnshop is a horrible place for a best offer, unless guns are an exception. An American friend of mine, who made his living buying music gear from pawnshops and selling the merchandise elsewhere, said receiving 10 cents on the dollar of current market worth was a good offer from a pawnshop.
Buy back programmes are meant to remove guns from circulation, especially those which might be problematic to sell through normal channels. As such, they have a different tone to merely selling them.
Whether they are effective is another topic, but comparing them to.pawnshops is a category error.
The new Arizona law demonstrates the difference between direct effectivity and ideological effectivity.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
It seems it depends on the terms of the buyback and what the gun would sell for on the market. I have a pistol that I wouldn't use as a weapon other than to throw it at someone because it is in terrible shape. A gun buy back program might actually give me more than what it was worth. It is not unusual to turn in such guns and using the proceeds to buy a gun one would actually want.

If a gun buy back program will only give up to a certain dollar figure, it is possible that one could still get more at a pawnshop if it is a really nice gun. One could just pawn the gun and get it back later if you are just trying to get some dough to tide you over to later, too.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
On the other hand, if you trade in six busted ass jank guns to finance one extra shiny one, you have theoretically contributed to reduction.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
This maybe a dumb question, but, if you just wanted a weapon for self defence - why go for a handgun rather than a taser ?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes along and says that a taser is a dangerous weapon and requires extensive background checks, registration and licensing.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
This maybe a dumb question, but, if you just wanted a weapon for self defence - why go for a handgun rather than a taser ?
If I were to be wanting a weapon for self-defense, I'd want the gun, not the taser. The reason is that I'm only going to use it if I'm being attacked with potentially lethal force, and a taser isn't a guaranteed stop.

It's fine as a less-lethal way of subduing a suspect for law enforcement, but there are too many examples of tasers failing to bring someone down (eg. clothing prevents barbs from making good contact) for me to want to rely on one. Also, the standard taser is a single-shot deal: if the barbs miss, it's now a very bad club.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
If all you care about is protecting yourself and harming your attacker, yes. If you think you cannot make a mistake, yes. If you think your purse or wallet is worth someone else' life, yes. If you think your safety is more important than a bystander, potentially your own family member, yes. If you think the risk to your children is worth being able to use deadly force, yes.
You know, all the good Christian values.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes along and says that a taser is a dangerous weapon and requires extensive background checks, registration and licensing.
Not quite in Canada. They are simply prohibited weapons. Only police may use them, they must verbally warn first, and firing one leads to an investigation just like the use of a gun. General public may not own them, or pepper spray or mace etc.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[QB] If all you care about is protecting yourself and harming your attacker, yes.
They would be about it. Our condo is laid out with the kitchen, dining room and living room to the right as you come in with the bedrooms down a hallway. Someone would have to start down the hallway towards our bedroom before I'd shoot them because then I would consider my wife and I to be really threatened. If I were a mind reader and knew they were just going to take our 3 1/2 year old tv that cost only about $600 and just leave, I'd just set it near the front door and make it easy. Making a bloody mess and the property damage from 12 gauge blasts would be far worse than losing an old tv.

[ 14. October 2015, 00:41: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes along and says that a taser is a dangerous weapon and requires extensive background checks, registration and licensing.
Not quite in Canada. They are simply prohibited weapons. Only police may use them, they must verbally warn first, and firing one leads to an investigation just like the use of a gun. General public may not own them, or pepper spray or mace etc.
I think at least one of my daughters carries spray and/or a stun gun.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I think at least one of my daughters carries spray and/or a stun gun.
God Bless America! But please calm down. You might kill someone.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes along and says that a taser is a dangerous weapon and requires extensive background checks, registration and licensing.
Not quite in Canada. They are simply prohibited weapons. Only police may use them, they must verbally warn first, and firing one leads to an investigation just like the use of a gun. General public may not own them, or pepper spray or mace etc.
I thought we were talking about guns in The United States of America. Or, have you Canadians decided that there's no point in pretending to be a different country and simply joined the US without telling anyone?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I thought we were talking about guns in The United States of America. Or, have you Canadians decided that there's no point in pretending to be a different country and simply joined the US without telling anyone?
God forbid! We need somewhere to go when it gets REALLY bad here, as it may yet still.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
There's still Mexico. Or, Cuba.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If all you care about is protecting yourself and harming your attacker, yes. If you think you cannot make a mistake, yes. If you think your purse or wallet is worth someone else' life, yes.
Doublethink's question stipulated that I had decided to carry a weapon, which implies that I have made these assessments and come out in favour of a weapon.

So that I am perfectly clear:

A taser can, potentially, kill (although it usually doesn't). That means that it must be regarded as lethal force, and there are no circumstances under which it is reasonable to shoot someone with a taser but not with a gun. (Yes, clearly if you have the right conditions it's better to use the taser because he probably won't die, but you still need to be able to justify lethal force to pull the trigger on a taser.) So if your wallet isn't worth killing over, don't get the taser out either.

quote:

If you think your safety is more important than a bystander, potentially your own family member, yes. If you think the risk to your children is worth being able to use deadly force, yes.
You know, all the good Christian values.
It seems to me that a child is just as likely to shoot himself or someone else with a taser he finds as with a gun, so I don't see that as an argument for taser over gun. I agree that it's an important consideration for "weapon / no weapon".

I assume your "safety of bystanders" thing is to do with missing your attacker, and hitting someone else. That's a question of training and practice. I can assure you that I think the typical training received by police officers is woefully inadequate.

I suspect that carrying a taser is actually less safe for those around me than carrying a gun. If I'm going to be using either weapon, it's because I'm being attacked by an armed assailant. If I fire a taser at him, and it fails to incapacitate him because one or both barbs are caught by his clothing, what's going to happen next? Are things likely to go better or worse for me and my family / friends than if I didn't have a weapon at all?

In the real world, I don't carry any kind of weapon, and nor do I intend to. The chance of me encountering a situation in which I'd want to shoot someone is basically zero. But if I did want to carry something, it wouldn't be a taser.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
In the real world, I don't carry any kind of weapon, and nor do I intend to. The chance of me encountering a situation in which I'd want to shoot someone is basically zero. But if I did want to carry something, it wouldn't be a taser.
Would your preference be towards a gun, or towards mace/pepper spray? Or simply an alarm that makes an awful lot of noise? Noting that things making loud noises have been classed as weapons (bag pipes, for example - and, used to great effect at times).
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Or, have you Canadians decided that there's no point in pretending to be a different country and simply joined the US without telling anyone?
Dear God, I think his sphincter clench just sucked up Montana...
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Would your preference be towards a gun, or towards mace/pepper spray? Or simply an alarm that makes an awful lot of noise?
Well, I suppose that would depend on what I thought the threat was. If I thought I was under sufficient threat of attack to warrant carrying some kind of weapon, I think I'd just go somewhere else - I don't think there's anywhere that I want to go that badly.

But stipulating that I had some reason to want to put myself in that kind of danger, there are some environments / threats where mace or an alarm might do the trick, and others where they'd be useless.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If I thought I was under sufficient threat of attack to warrant carrying some kind of weapon, I think I'd just go somewhere else - I don't think there's anywhere that I want to go that badly.
Let's put it in relation to the scenario that the NRA pose as justification for more guns (putting aside for the moment that the NRA, on this point at least, are completely nuts).

You're a school teacher. You have to be in school, you have no "go somewhere else" option. And, the threat is potential crazy person with one or more guns intent on shooting you or the students in your care. Also, let's suppose option A (get yourself and your students out of the building to somewhere safe) and option B (barricade the class room door and establish as much protection with desks as possible) are not feasible - ie: the gunman is actually in the room. Would any of the non-gun options be effective at, if not actually disabling the gunman, giving opportunity for you to get your students and yourself to safety? Would mace or pepper spray induce sufficient pain and loss of vision that you would have the opportunity to escape? Or would a rape alarm (or similar) in an enclosed space be sufficiently disruptive of his ability to react?

Basically, in that desperate situation, is a gun your only realistic option? Or, by that time are things so bad that nothing is going to make any difference?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
This maybe a dumb question, but, if you just wanted a weapon for self defence - why go for a handgun rather than a taser ?
If I were to be wanting a weapon for self-defense, I'd want the gun, not the taser. The reason is that I'm only going to use it if I'm being attacked with potentially lethal force, and a taser isn't a guaranteed stop.

It's fine as a less-lethal way of subduing a suspect for law enforcement, but there are too many examples of tasers failing to bring someone down (eg. clothing prevents barbs from making good contact) for me to want to rely on one. Also, the standard taser is a single-shot deal: if the barbs miss, it's now a very bad club.
I would be interested to know if the belief that a handgun has more chance of stopping an attacker - say with a gun - than a taser, is justified.

Unless you are stunningly accurate, a bullet will not stop someone pulling the trigger when they are seriously injured - whereas a taser hit renders you unable to do anything for a period of time. (Some tasers available in the USA for civillian use can fire three times, using three cartridges, without requiring a reload.)
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Alan:
quote:
Basically, in that desperate situation, is a gun your only realistic option? Or, by that time are things so bad that nothing is going to make any difference?
Well, you could do what Professor Librescu did in the Virginia Tech shootings; attempt to grapple with the gunman to give your students time to escape. The teachers at Sandy Hook tried to stop the massacre too. All of them deserve to be remembered as heroes. [Votive]

Unless you actually have the gun in your hand and shoot as the crazed gunman comes through the door I think the only difference the gun would make is that you'd be shot first.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Unless you actually have the gun in your hand and shoot as the crazed gunman comes through the door I think the only difference the gun would make is that you'd be shot first.
If there are lots of guns around for "self defence", sooner or later someone will make a mistake. If you're the "good guy with a gun" who shoots a student bursting through the door of your room to get out of sight of the gunman in the corridor you'll have to live with it the rest of your life.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Oscar Pistorius, anyone?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Let's put it in relation to the scenario that the NRA pose as justification for more guns (putting aside for the moment that the NRA, on this point at least, are completely nuts).

You're a school teacher. You have to be in school, you have no "go somewhere else" option. And, the threat is potential crazy person with one or more guns intent on shooting you or the students in your care. [..] the gunman is actually in the room. Would any of the non-gun options be effective at, if not actually disabling the gunman, giving opportunity for you to get your students and yourself to safety? Would mace or pepper spray induce sufficient pain and loss of vision that you would have the opportunity to escape? Or would a rape alarm (or similar) in an enclosed space be sufficiently disruptive of his ability to react?

Basically, in that desperate situation, is a gun your only realistic option? Or, by that time are things so bad that nothing is going to make any difference?
So if I accept the premise:

Normal pepper spray has a range of about 10 feet. The civilian Taser C2 has a range of 15 feet. A handgun is effective anywhere in the classroom.

To make any kind of defense possible, I think we need to assume you either heard the gunman coming, so have a few seconds to prepare, or he's at the front of the classroom grandstanding about how misunderstood he is. If you're in a classroom engaged in a lesson, and someone comes through the door ready to kill people, most of you are dead, and arming the teacher won't help because the shooter will kill the teacher first.

Let's go with the grandstanding model - it's the closest match to your premise. Some nutter is waving his gun around at the front of your classroom talking about how he hated school, and you and the kids are on the other side of the room. It's hard for me to imagine being close enough for pepper spray to be useful, whereas I could just about imagine the stars aligning so that I could draw a gun and fire before the shooter was able to respond.

Rape alarms? No idea. I have no feel for how incapacitating they are. Presumably you'd set it off and throw it at him; presumably whatever effect it had on the gunman it would have on you and the children as well.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Normal pepper spray has a range of about 10 feet. The civilian Taser C2 has a range of 15 feet. A handgun is effective anywhere in the classroom.
And depending on the power of the handgun, the next classroom too.

What's your priority here? Is it to be a Big Damn Hero, or ensure that as few as possible of your students die? Because at the point where there's a gunman in my classroom, I'm figuring that the janitor's broom is probably going to be my best bet.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I think at least one of my daughters carries spray and/or a stun gun.
God Bless America! But please calm down. You might kill someone.
Calm down? Compared to me Marlin Perkins would be the wild and crazy one.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Police tasers, which theoretically could be made legal for civillians, have a range of 35 feet.

What is the average distance people can fire a handgun accurately ?
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
They would be about it. Our condo is laid out with the kitchen, dining room and living room to the right as you come in with the bedrooms down a hallway. Someone would have to start down the hallway towards our bedroom before I'd shoot them because then I would consider my wife and I to be really threatened. If I were a mind reader and knew they were just going to take our 3 1/2 year old tv that cost only about $600 and just leave, I'd just set it near the front door and make it easy. Making a bloody mess and the property damage from 12 gauge blasts would be far worse than losing an old tv.
[Roll Eyes] So now that you have the script written, who's going to play you in the movie?

See what I mean about fantasy shit? Why don't you tell us about the other fantasies where one of your kids is despondent over flunking math or your wife is pissed at the next-door neighbour or your boss yells at you or a truck cuts you off in traffic or whatever and you won't be the hero? You know, the fantasies where you're just one more mouth-breathing Amoronican contributing to the thousands of deaths caused by gun culture?
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
... Let's go with the grandstanding model - it's the closest match to your premise. Some nutter is waving his gun around at the front of your classroom talking about how he hated school, and you and the kids are on the other side of the room. It's hard for me to imagine being close enough for pepper spray to be useful, whereas I could just about imagine the stars aligning so that I could draw a gun and fire before the shooter was able to respond....
Well, your imagining sucks. How about talking the person down?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The Taser XREP has a 30 metre range. It is a projectile fired from a shotgun.
ETA: adding to DT's comment.
The complete fantasy scenarios, and the idiots who believe them, are a large part of the problem.

[ 14. October 2015, 18:48: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
So now that you have the script written, who's going to play you in the movie?
Gilbert Gottfried. I like his voice.

quote:
See what I mean about fantasy shit? Why don't you tell us about the other fantasies where one of your kids is despondent over flunking math or your wife is pissed at the next-door neighbour or your boss yells at you or a truck cuts you off in traffic or whatever and you won't be the hero? You know, the fantasies where you're just one more mouth-breathing Amoronican contributing to the thousands of deaths caused by gun culture?
No, I'm sticking to where it is someone heading down the hall to our bedroom and, therefore, posing a direct personal threat.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
At that range you could definitely hit them with a taser.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
At that range you could definitely hit them with a taser.
Probably. Someone mentioned one with several rounds in it, so that may be an option, too.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
That would be the taser X3
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The Taser XREP has a 30 metre range. It is a projectile fired from a shotgun.
I thought we were discussing things that could conveniently be carried around. So DT's 35 feet for a police model pistol-style taser is arguably OK (they're bulky, but I suppose you could imagine carrying one). It's really not practical for most people to wander around with shotguns...

Note that 35 feet is the range of the taser, not the accurate range. Most handgun rounds can easily travel many hundred feet, but accuracy is the issue.

DT asks about handgun accurate ranges.

Men's Olympic pistol shooting is at a 50 meter range, and a world-class shooter will land all his shots in a circle that's about 7.5 cm diameter.

These are controlled conditions, world-class athletes, and very much special-purpose guns. Normal people and normal guns couldn't get close to that.

Consistently hitting a chest-sized target at 50 feet with a normal handgun is, I think, achievable by anyone with practice.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
That would be the taser X3
Lots of choices. I googled taser gun and this is one right here came up.

Between that and the shotgun, fine.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
So, given that, would you commit to taser instead of firearm ?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Consistently hitting a chest-sized target at 50 feet with a normal handgun is, I think, achievable by anyone with practice.
So, Leorning Clint. Given that the police practice regularly, and that they managed to land just 18% of their shots at targets who are actively shooting back (and only 30% of them at targets that aren't), I call BS on the relevance of this.

You are, on average, going to hit anything but your target, no matter what you can do at the range.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
This might be of interest as regards the accuracy of a taser. With a 25-foot range cartridge, accuracy was usually adequate at 15 feet, but not so great at 20 feet. At the end of the document you'll find a protest from Taser about this claim. There were also issues with barb penetration at 20 feet.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I thought we were discussing things that could conveniently be carried around. So DT's 35 feet for a police model pistol-style taser is arguably OK (they're bulky, but I suppose you could imagine carrying one). It's really not practical for most people to wander around with shotguns...
I don't think carrying around either one is all that practical because even a taser looks too bulky. There's an area maybe 50 sq feet plus the size of our bedroom that I'd really think about using either one. Well, the whole condo if someone breaks in when we're still awake. Even then, we are located near the middle of the complex so the chances of anything really happening are remote.

Our unit, and I guess all the others, also have built in fire hose systems. That must mean we all fantasize about our homes catching on fire, too.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Given the pace of technological change, I think I'd want data on products on the market now, not seven years ago. I mean seriously, that's two years before the release of the ipad.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
]So, Leorning Clint. Given that the police practice regularly,
This statement just isn't true. Most police do not practice regularly - most police officers shoot twice a year to re-qualify (and the standard required to qualify in many departments is very low). Many departments don't even practice with their regular carry ammunition, and few departments drill in any kind of realistic scenario.

You'd like it to be true, and I'd like it to be true, but it just isn't.

You can see why it's true as well. Pretty much every cop carries a gun, but most will never fire it outside the qualification range. Shooting guns just isn't a big part of a police officer's job, so it's easy to see why a department might spend its training time on things that will be used more often.

That, by the way, is yet another reason arming teachers is a bad idea. Schools have much less spare money floating around than police forces. How big do you think their teachers' firearms training budget is going to be?
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So, given that, would you commit to taser instead of firearm ?
I'd rather use a taser in our condo because if would make less of a mess (does being tasered cause one to lose control of bodily functions?) but will keep the shotgun.

It seems that a motion detector with a limited range that is wired to turn on some of our lights would be a great idea, too. I'd rather a potential home invader just leave.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
How does a shotgun help, in your condo, over having two three shot tasers ?
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
How does a shotgun help, in your condo, over having two three shot tasers ?
The taser doesn't always stop folks.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Nor do guns.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Given that the police practice regularly,
This statement just isn't true. Most police do not practice regularly - most police officers shoot twice a year to re-qualify (and the standard required to qualify in many departments is very low). Many departments don't even practice with their regular carry ammunition, and few departments drill in any kind of realistic scenario.
What the fuck is wrong with you people?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I can't imagine what it must be like fearing armed intrusion to the extent that I'd be tooled up and prepared to shoot.

I had a fair few break-ins when I lived in a run-down area - one of them as I lay in bed - but the intruder fled as soon as they realised there was someone in.

That was pretty scarey at the time.

I was also mugged once but managed to hold onto my wallet when I realised that they weren't going to offer serious violence.

I appreciate that this makes me fortunate and isn't the reality that many people live in day to day. Someone's normal is someome else's abnormal.

In this instance, I'm glad my normal is normal ... but I don't know what to say to those for whom my normal is abnormal.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Thing
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Thing
As if facts will ever trump fantasy.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
The fantasy ? Clobbering the home invader round the head with a specialty item from njoy ?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
[Killing me]
Wrong kind of toys.
They enjoy having around a magnum whilst stroking their snub nose.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Bloody hell, waving around. Besides, no room for toys with their heads in the way.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Fucking Siri suggestions.
I read this, so fuck you gun-loving bastards, you read it as well.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Nor do guns.
A shotgun at the distance under consideration would.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can't imagine what it must be like fearing armed intrusion to the extent that I'd be tooled up and prepared to shoot.

I had a fair few break-ins when I lived in a run-down area - one of them as I lay in bed - but the intruder fled as soon as they realised there was someone in.
It's not a big fear and they would have to come toward our bedroom and pose a threat to my wife and me before I'd do something like shoot someone. I've never heard of any of the homes hear being burglarized and doubt that someone would select ours if any were since we towards the middle of the complex.

To read some of the comments here, it seems there are folks who really think there are folks who fantasize about having a bloody mess in their home.

[ 15. October 2015, 00:47: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
A link in that article leads to this study on attitudes to gun ownership and mental health. I find some parts of the gun ownership section (I've not read the mental health bit yet) interesting.

First there is in many of the questions a clear difference between NRA members and other gun owners. For example in questions about banning the sale of military style assault weapons with multiple round magazines <20% of NRA members supported this, whereas 45-50% of all gun owners did - and >75% of non-gun owners. For requiring a law-enforcement issued license only 38% of NRA members support this compared to 59% of all gun owners, and 84% of non-gun owners. On every question NRA members were less supportive than other gun owners. With only 18% of the gun owners in that survey belonging to the NRA, it appears that claims by the NRA that they represent gun owners are bunkum, with the majority of gun owners having different views to the NRA on gun control issues.

Second, I note the level of support for several relatively easily implemented policies. Almost 70% support on banning sale of military style assault weapons with multiple round magazines (with slightly lower support at around 55% for banning ownership of these weapons - which is a step that would require some form of "taking away our guns" step). Requiring licenses issued by law-enforcement agencies supported by 77% of respondents, with restrictions on provision of licenses to people who have been convicted of multiple crimes, violent crime, domestic violence supported by over 75%. Legal requirement to have guns locked away when not in use supported by 67%.

Assuming those figures are correct then legislation that includes one or more of the following would have overwhelming popular support from the American public - including those who already own guns
If so, and that study is more than a year old so this isn't new information on what the people of the US want, why hasn't this already happened? Even more interestingly, why aren't these included in the platforms for those campaigning for the Presidency as there would appear to be votes to be had there?
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
Alan,

What do mean when you use the term "assault weapon"?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I take it that it is legal to shoot and kill American intruders to your house. Is it in UK, Australia, NZ, continental Europe? It is certainly not legal in Canada. You may only use force proportionate to the threat. Scaring the intruder is preferrable. I don't recall hearing of anyone shooting in such a situation. Of course legal storage of guns means locked up unloaded separate from bullets, which means no one expects armed intruders or homeowners here.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I take it that it is legal to shoot and kill American intruders to your house.
Well, it depends. Here is our law.

Here is an opinion piece from a former NYPD detective and NRA pistol instructor that helps to put it in layman's terms.
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
It seems that burglars themselves agree that the best defense against home intruders is a dog inside with a good, strong bark.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Alan,

What do mean when you use the term "assault weapon"?
In the post above, I'm using the term from the NEJM article. It may not be as clearly defined as you'd like. They use the phrase "military style, semi-automatic assault weapons that are capable of shooting more than 10 rounds of ammunition without reloading", so the 69% of respondents saying they wanting a ban on the sale of assault weapons (and the 56% who favoured a ban on ownership) were responding to a question phrased with that definition.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Nor do guns.
A shotgun at the distance under consideration would.
A shotgun would if you have time to aim the gun and fire it and the proposed target doesn't do anything too bothersome while you're coping with the adrenalin surging through you at the time. Like, I don't know... you can ask them to stand still?

This is all assuming you have the gun to hand of course.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I take it that it is legal to shoot and kill American intruders to your house. Is it in UK,
It appears that in the US it is only legal to shoot someone actually breaking in, or where there is a threat to your life.

I can only comment about the UK, and that in light mostly of some relatively recent gun law research (for this thread and another recent example where we had to consider legal implications of something said here). In the UK, to obtain a license for a gun you need to justify why you need the gun - self defence, or defence of property (except from animal pests), is not recognised as a legitimate reason to own a gun. It is also a criminal offence to use a gun to inflict harm on someone else, or as an act of intimidation (so that also includes unloaded or non-functional guns). However, if you happen to have a gun and there is reasonable cause to consider your life to be in danger then a case for self-defence can be made - you will probably go to court and have to show that either the intruder was armed with a lethal weapon (gun, knife etc) or that you had very good reason to suspect he was, and that you had good reason to assume he was going to use the weapon on you or someone else. You would go through the same procedure if you picked up a kitchen knife to defend yourself or hit someone with the cricket bat you left in the hallway.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Nor do guns.
A shotgun at the distance under consideration would.
A shotgun would if you have time to aim the gun and fire it and the proposed target doesn't do anything too bothersome while you're coping with the adrenalin surging through you at the time. Like, I don't know... you can ask them to stand still?

This is all assuming you have the gun to hand of course.
I don't see why a taser gun would be any more accurate or more likely to be in my hand.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It appears that in the US it is only legal to shoot someone actually breaking in, or where there is a threat to your life.
Not quite. In states with "stand your ground" laws, all you have to do is "feel" threatened to have the right to shoot. Of course if you shoot someone the courts will sort it out later, but the important thing is that you feel threatened.

[ 15. October 2015, 03:06: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Alan,

What do mean when you use the term "assault weapon"?
In the post above, I'm using the term from the NEJM article. It may not be as clearly defined as you'd like. They use the phrase "military style, semi-automatic assault weapons that are capable of shooting more than 10 rounds of ammunition without reloading", so the 69% of respondents saying they wanting a ban on the sale of assault weapons (and the 56% who favoured a ban on ownership) were responding to a question phrased with that definition.
Ok. The difference between a semi-automatic assault weapon and a semi-automatic rifle is one is called an assault weapon and the other is called a rifle. Either one fires one bullet each time the trigger is pulled. They just look different. As I understand it, automatic weapons are against the law throughout the country but people often think assault rifles, which can be fired automatically or burst, are what is meant by the term "assault weapon".
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It appears that in the US it is only legal to shoot someone actually breaking in, or where there is a threat to your life.
Not quite. In states with "stand your ground" laws, all you have to do is "feel" threatened to have the right to shoot. Of course if you shoot someone the courts will sort it out later, but the important thing is that you feel threatened.
I was just following the links Mere Nick provided, which at least for North Carolina in the opinion piece in laymans terms, said that merely being in your house wasn't justification for shooting someone - "The law presumes there is an intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence, and you have a right to shoot them while they are in the process of breaking in, if you fear you will lose your life.", "You must be able to state that you feared for your life and the facts must back up that statement".

Sorry, my post seems to have gained an "or" somewhere in there which confuses things a bit. And, probably "justifiable assumption of threat to your life" would be better. A really poorly composed paragraph all around on my part. But, in my defence the main point of my post was the summary of UK law - which basically seems to be the same except we wouldn't have a loaded gun handy in all but a very few cases.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It appears that in the US it is only legal to shoot someone actually breaking in, or where there is a threat to your life.
Not quite. In states with "stand your ground" laws, all you have to do is "feel" threatened to have the right to shoot. Of course if you shoot someone the courts will sort it out later, but the important thing is that you feel threatened.
Here in North Carolina you have to reasonably believe such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. So, threatened, but what would reasonably be a serious threat.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In states with "stand your ground" laws, all you have to do is "feel" threatened to have the right to shoot. Of course if you shoot someone the courts will sort it out later, but the important thing is that you feel threatened.
Even if the person "threatening" you is carrying nothing but a box of Skittles.
[Disappointed]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In states with "stand your ground" laws, all you have to do is "feel" threatened to have the right to shoot. Of course if you shoot someone the courts will sort it out later, but the important thing is that you feel threatened.
Even if the person "threatening" you is carrying nothing but a box of Skittles.
[Disappointed]
HE WAS BLACK! Are you mad?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The difference between a semi-automatic assault weapon and a semi-automatic rifle is one is called an assault weapon and the other is called a rifle. Either one fires one bullet each time the trigger is pulled. They just look different. As I understand it, automatic weapons are against the law throughout the country but people often think assault rifles, which can be fired automatically or burst, are what is meant by the term "assault weapon".
Surely "assault weapon" is a generic term covering a variety of weapons with some common features - an "assault rifle" would be one example of that class of weapons, not a different class altogether. And, the article clearly said "semi-automatic" not "automatic".

I would say the main characteristic of concern is the magazine with 10 or more rounds. There are very few, if any, cases where I can see that as necessary. For example, if you're hunting you would want to hit the target with the first shot - if you miss the deer (or whatever) will have gone, along with practically every other critter in the vicinity. It will be some time before the prey calm down and stop being jittery enough to hunt again, certainly long enough to reload. I can see how you might want to be able to get off a quick second shot if your first injures the animal and you want to finish the job as quickly as possible.

So, what is the justification people have for having weapons that have large magazines? Other than paranoid delusions about Communist invasions, alien attack, zombie rampages or deciding to instigate an armed rebellion against the government.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I was just following the links Mere Nick provided, which at least for North Carolina in the opinion piece in laymans terms, said that merely being in your house wasn't justification for shooting someone - "The law presumes there is an intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence, and you have a right to shoot them while they are in the process of breaking in, if you fear you will lose your life.", "You must be able to state that you feared for your life and the facts must back up that statement".

Sorry, my post seems to have gained an "or" somewhere in there which confuses things a bit. And, probably "justifiable assumption of threat to your life" would be better. A really poorly composed paragraph all around on my part. But, in my defence the main point of my post was the summary of UK law - which basically seems to be the same except we wouldn't have a loaded gun handy in all but a very few cases.
I think what I was providing was information for is the Castle Doctrine, not the Stand Your Ground stuff.

From what I've provided, I wouldn't feel it a life threatening matter unless someone decided to come down the hall to our bedroom. If I shoot down the hallway, the blast would not be directed toward a neighboring condo but toward a hill across the street. I doubt a jury would convict me for shooting an intruder anywhere in my home, but that's not good enough for me. I don't want to shoot someone over mere stuff but I will if my wife or I are threatened. So, it comes down to what are the odds of someone coming to our 225 home condo complex, going towards the middle of it, breaking into our particular unit and coming down our hallway? Very low, I calculate.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, what is the justification people have for having weapons that have large magazines? Other than paranoid delusions about Communist invasions, alien attack, zombie rampages or deciding to instigate an armed rebellion against the government.
I'd rather have a magazine that is too big than too small if I was defending the family from intruders. The shotgun holds a dozen.

In the event of the zombie apocalypse, which will no doubt come, Michonne has convinced me of the advantages of a katana sword.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
In the event of the zombie apocalypse, which will no doubt come, Michonne has convinced me of the advantages of a katana sword.
Let the reader understand.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
In the event of the zombie apocalypse, which will no doubt come, Michonne has convinced me of the advantages of a katana sword.
Let the reader understand.
Michonne
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'd rather have a magazine that is too big than too small if I was defending the family from intruders. The shotgun holds a dozen.
Not in this state it don't. 3 cartridges max.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In the post above, I'm using the term from the NEJM article. It may not be as clearly defined as you'd like. They use the phrase "military style, semi-automatic assault weapons that are capable of shooting more than 10 rounds of ammunition without reloading", so the 69% of respondents saying they wanting a ban on the sale of assault weapons (and the 56% who favoured a ban on ownership) were responding to a question phrased with that definition.
There used to be a federal ban on the production of new "assault weapons". In that 1994 law, a "semiautomatic assault weapon" was one with two or more of a particular set of features. New magazines couldn't hold more than ten rounds, but old ones were grandfathered in - and there were a lot of old ones. A lot of the features were basically cosmetic. Basically, it was a gun that looked a bit scary.

Which means that manufacturers just needed to tweak their designs a bit to get functionally similar weapons to pass the law. Very few people are fixing bayonets to defend their homes (or chase down Bambi), so the absence of a bayonet mount is unlikely to trouble anyone.

It may be that mass shooters are excited by "scary military-looking" weapons, so a ban on guns with a particular appearance might have an effect on the number of mass shootings. The data isn't significant enough to really say either way. I don't think the 1994 law accomplished much else.

The law expired in 2004, and was not renewed.

[ 15. October 2015, 04:56: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
In the event of the zombie apocalypse, which will no doubt come, Michonne has convinced me of the advantages of a katana sword.
Let the reader understand.
Michonne
I hope you didn't think I didn't understand.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Nor do guns.
A shotgun at the distance under consideration would.
A shotgun would if you have time to aim the gun and fire it and the proposed target doesn't do anything too bothersome while you're coping with the adrenalin surging through you at the time. Like, I don't know... you can ask them to stand still?

This is all assuming you have the gun to hand of course.
I don't see why a taser gun would be any more accurate or more likely to be in my hand.
I'm not suggesting it would.

And to ask that is to ask the wrong question. The correct question is: why have a gun - an item that is more likely to cause death or serious injury to your or your family when it won't be any better for the purpose of protection?

As far as I'm concerned, the point isn't that a taser would be more effective than a gun at the intended purpose. The point is that it would be just as effective but with fewer bad side-effects.

I'm constantly amazed at the ability of gun proponents to focus on the benefits of guns while not mentioning the downsides, when all the evidence is that in real life the downsides are massively more likely to occur. You know all those toddlers who've managed to shoot someone (including themselves) this year? It would be damn interesting to find out whether the guns they found were "for protection" and whether any of the guns they found had ever actually been used for protection.

[ 15. October 2015, 05:59: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

I'm constantly amazed at the ability of gun proponents to focus on the benefits of guns while not mentioning the downsides, when all the evidence is that in real life the downsides are massively more likely to occur.
It's easy to convince yourself that all these downsides are because some other guy was stupid, and that you're not going to be that stupid. And there's a fair amount of truth in that.

Another example: Condoms are 85% effective at preventing pregnancy in practice, and 98% effective when used correctly. This doesn't mean that the average person has a 15% chance of failure - it means that many people will come close to 98% effectiveness, and then there's a bunch of screwups. If you know you're not a screwup, you should feel confident that you would achieve an effectiveness in the high nineties.

The catch is that most screwups think that they're normal.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The catch is that most screwups think that they're normal.
Reasonably certain that almost everyone thinks they're 'above average'. Which is clearly nonsense.

If cops can't hit a barn door when the perp isn't even shooting back, the vast majority of civilians are going to be worse than that.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The catch is that most screwups think that they're normal.
Reasonably certain that almost everyone thinks they're 'above average'. Which is clearly nonsense.

If cops can't hit a barn door when the perp isn't even shooting back, the vast majority of civilians are going to be worse than that.
Actually, I think it's that they can't hit a barn door when the 'perp' is a stationary paper cut out at 10 yards, with time to steady their aim.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Fucking Siri suggestions.
I read this, so fuck you gun-loving bastards, you read it as well.
Guns don't kill people.

Babies kill people.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Reasonably certain that almost everyone thinks they're 'above average'. Which is clearly nonsense.
Some years ago an Australian car insurance company did a survey of its customers.

70% of them rated themselves as above average drivers.

The view of the company was that it was the people who rated themselves highly that were a concern, because as a matter of logic a substantial number of them were overestimating their driving skills.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... I've never heard of any of the homes hear being burglarized and doubt that someone would select ours if any were since we towards the middle of the complex.

To read some of the comments here, it seems there are folks who really think there are folks who fantasize about having a bloody mess in their home.
So you've decided to keep a gun in your house so you can risk the lives of your friends, family and neighbours to prevent something that has never happened and you believe isn't likely to happen. That's beyond fantasy, that's fucking delusional. Send me all your moneys now - I found a great deal on insurance against wildebeest stampedes for you.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...
The view of the company was that it was the people who rated themselves highly that were a concern, because as a matter of logic a substantial number of them were overestimating their driving skills.
There's actually been some social science research on this phenomenon, and it's not just the math, it's human nature. People who think they're good at something are often overestimating their abilities; and those who think they aren't very good at something are often underestimating. It's ego vs. reality. "Trust me, I know what I'm doing" usually leads to horrible "accidents".
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'd rather have a magazine that is too big than too small if I was defending the family from intruders. The shotgun holds a dozen.
Not in this state it don't. 3 cartridges max.
Really? What state is that? I've done a little digging and can't find anything about it anywhere in the country.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Reasonably certain that almost everyone thinks they're 'above average'. Which is clearly nonsense.
Some years ago an Australian car insurance company did a survey of its customers.

70% of them rated themselves as above average drivers.
If my insurance company asked me to rate my driving I'd rate myself as above average because I would be concerned that if I rated myself below average theyd put my premiums up!
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
In the event of the zombie apocalypse, which will no doubt come, Michonne has convinced me of the advantages of a katana sword.
Let the reader understand.
Michonne
I hope you didn't think I didn't understand.
I didn't know if you did or didn't, and so what if you didn't?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
No biggie, just a point of pride for me.

Although, returning to "Walking Dead" this season with this thread in mind has left a bad taste-- what is that show but an apologia for " frontier justice," when you come down to it? Some humans are not human anymore, and those who are human humans are justified in eridicating them.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I don't see why a taser gun would be any more accurate or more likely to be in my hand.
I'm not suggesting it would.

And to ask that is to ask the wrong question. The correct question is: why have a gun - an item that is more likely to cause death or serious injury to your or your family when it won't be any better for the purpose of protection?

As far as I'm concerned, the point isn't that a taser would be more effective than a gun at the intended purpose. The point is that it would be just as effective but with fewer bad side-effects.
No, a taser would not be as effective in all cases. It does happen that some folks, for what ever reason, are not all that fazed by them. I don't know if it is because of certain drugs, adrenaline, or what. It would seem unlikely that a home invader would be willing to allow us to experiment. If it was a 100% certainty that a taser would work, fine. Better than a bloody mess and property damage.

quote:
I'm constantly amazed at the ability of gun proponents to focus on the benefits of guns while not mentioning the downsides, when all the evidence is that in real life the downsides are massively more likely to occur.
There's no reason the mention the downsides because everyone knows them. Do you ever drive a car? Must you always add that people die in car wrecks?

I'm not really a gun proponent. I'm a proponent of the idea that you, orfeo, are more qualified than anyone else, the only one qualified, to make such a decision about such things in your life. If you want one, fine. If not, fine. It's your choice and your responsibility. It appears you don't have any guns. You do have a credibility that is completely lacking in any of our politicians who have armed guards yet try to lecture the rest of us. The can sod off.

I believe it is impossible to calculate how many times guns have been used for protection. Should it be just how many times a gun was used? Shown? How many times would be burglars never even approached a property in the first place because of the thought folks might be armed?
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
No biggie, just a point of pride for me.

Although, returning to "Walking Dead" this season with this thread in mind has left a bad taste-- what is that show but an apologia for " frontier justice," when you come down to it? Some humans are not human anymore, and those who are human humans are justified in eridicating them.
Oh? I thought it was to promote the idea that women who are good at baking cookies, killing people and blowing shit up are great to have around unless they want to show you some flowers.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Do you ever drive a car? Must you always add that people die in car wrecks?
No, primarily because (in this part of the world at least) it's possible to successfully use a car for its stated purpose a remarkable number of times before anything bad happens.

Same with all sorts of things that are part of everyday life, generally work fine, occasionally go badly wrong. Heaters successfully heat homes far more often than they burn them down.

With a gun for protection, you're talking about something that is kept around for an unlikely scenario and, despite your attempt now to suggest that it's actually used when it's displayed but not fired, has been shown to more likely harm the residents of the house than to be used successfully.

(If you want to scare people by brandishing a gun, buy a fucking replica.)

This is all just variation of cost/benefit analysis and risk management. I take on the risk of driving a car because of the huge demonstrable benefits it brings to my daily life. I have no problem with gun ownership when it's for a concrete, practical purpose (as is perfectly possible in rural areas).

What I find bizarre is how successfully the NRA/the gun industry has sold an inchoate notion that people need "protection" for an event that is quite unlikely, and with little guarantee the protection will actually work. Soror Magna has already perfectly encapsulated how delusional this is.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'd rather have a magazine that is too big than too small if I was defending the family from intruders. The shotgun holds a dozen.
Not in this state it don't. 3 cartridges max.
Really? What state is that? I've done a little digging and can't find anything about it anywhere in the country.
I think what MT is thinking of is Federal law regarding hunting of migratory waterfowl - there is indeed a 3 round capacity limit when hunting ducks, geese, etc.

I'm not aware of any state that prescribes a 3 round magazine limit for general possession or use , however.
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...
The view of the company was that it was the people who rated themselves highly that were a concern, because as a matter of logic a substantial number of them were overestimating their driving skills.
There's actually been some social science research on this phenomenon, and it's not just the math, it's human nature. People who think they're good at something are often overestimating their abilities; and those who think they aren't very good at something are often underestimating. It's ego vs. reality. "Trust me, I know what I'm doing" usually leads to horrible "accidents".
The Dunning-Kruger Effect
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
I'd rather have a magazine that is too big than too small if I was defending the family from intruders. The shotgun holds a dozen.
Shotguns are for hunting here. Waterfowl (ducks, geese) and upland game (grouse, pheasants, partridge). Invariably they are 12 gauge (18.5mm), 26" barrels (66cm) and almost always pump action, which will hold 5 shells, but it is required to have a plug in the magazine to restrict it to 3 shells. Guns with shorter barrels and more shell capacity are restricted.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

If cops can't hit a barn door when the perp isn't even shooting back, the vast majority of civilians are going to be worse than that.
Yes indeed - unless they put in the training and practice. There's nothing innate about cops that makes them skilled shots - you'd expect them to be no better and no worse than a bunch of random civilians who have had the same level of training and practice, and have reasonable physical fitness.

They're just people. More or less anyone who wants to shoot significantly better than the average cop can learn to do so. It's not magic, just training and practice, which costs time and money. Spend a lot more time on training and practice than Officer Friendly, and you shouldn't be surprised when you out-shoot him. It's not something that most people do do, but it's something that they are capable of doing.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

The view of the company was that it was the people who rated themselves highly that were a concern, because as a matter of logic a substantial number of them were overestimating their driving skills.
Sure. Someone who is a poor driver and knows that he is a poor driver will give himself extra space/time, because he knows his limitations. Someone who is bad but thinks he's good will take risks and cause accidents.

(It's easy to score someone's shooting - shoot a target from a standard distance, and add up the points. Driving skill is harder to measure objectively, so probably easier to mis-estimate.)

I do wonder exactly what's going on with this stat, though. I would guess (without much of any data to back it up) that most of what's going on is that people are thinking that the average driver is worse than they really are, because examples of bad driving that you encounter stick in your mind more than examples of good driving. So if you rank drivers on a 0-10 scale, with 5 being average, I'd be expecting a whole load of 5s to be ranking themselves as "above average" because they think that an average driver is about a 3.5.

This error is much less dangerous than having a smaller number of boy racer 2s and 3s who think they're 8s and 9s.

quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
The Dunning-Kruger Effect
Well, according to that study, my guess would be wrong. That study suggests that it's the very bad who are going around thinking that they are average or a bit above, and conversely the very good don't really understand how bad some other people are.

quote:
A follow-up study, reported in the same paper, suggests that grossly incompetent students improved their ability to estimate their rank after minimal tutoring in the skills they had previously lacked, regardless of the negligible improvement gained in skills.
In other words, people who are useless at X tend to have had no exposure to the range of skill at X, and so don't realize how good other people are. Once they see that other people can easily do what they can't, they realize their ineptitude.

One assumes that the able person would also get better at estimating his superiority by spending time observing the crap.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
I'd rather have a magazine that is too big than too small if I was defending the family from intruders. The shotgun holds a dozen.
Shotguns are for hunting here. Waterfowl (ducks, geese) and upland game (grouse, pheasants, partridge). Invariably they are 12 gauge (18.5mm), 26" barrels (66cm) and almost always pump action, which will hold 5 shells, but it is required to have a plug in the magazine to restrict it to 3 shells. Guns with shorter barrels and more shell capacity are restricted.
I believe the length requirements here are 18 inch barrels and 26 inch for the whole gun. I've no interest in hunting so will probably just take it up to the mountain and shoot targets.

I found this and if you scroll down to The "Shotgun Myth" it says the 3 shell limit is for for when you are shooting at migratory birds. Otherwise, there's no limit.

Way back in 1996 we took a couple of private planes through Canada to Alaska. We stopped off in Edmonton and an officer came to the plane and made sure we didn't have any handguns but did have a rifle. It's the only place I've ever been to where folks wanted to make sure we had a gun. I don't recall if there were magazine minumums or maximums for the rifle.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] Do you ever drive a car? Must you always add that people die in car wrecks?
No, primarily because (in this part of the world at least) it's possible to successfully use a car for its stated purpose a remarkable number of times before anything bad happens.
Same here, but more people die in car wrecks than gun homicide.

quote:
With a gun for protection, you're talking about something that is kept around for an unlikely scenario and, despite your attempt now to suggest that it's actually used when it's displayed but not fired, has been shown to more likely harm the residents of the house than to be used successfully.
Of course it's unlikely. It is a possibility, though, and so we will have one. While you believe it is just a suggestion that showing one counts as a use, I believe that that the idea that folks have them is an actual use. The secret service at the White House is constantly using them, even though they are rarely fired at anyone.

quote:
This is all just variation of cost/benefit analysis and risk management. I take on the risk of driving a car because of the huge demonstrable benefits it brings to my daily life. I have no problem with gun ownership when it's for a concrete, practical purpose (as is perfectly possible in rural areas).
Exactly. That's why I leave it up to you to decide whether or not you will be armed with a gun.

quote:
What I find bizarre is how successfully the NRA/the gun industry has sold an inchoate notion that people need "protection" for an event that is quite unlikely, and with little guarantee the protection will actually work.
Even Joe Biden recommends a shotgun. I don't see a need for me to own a pistol or rifle. If you want one or either, go for it.

quote:
Soror Magna has already perfectly encapsulated how delusional this is.
I find the idea of someone other than you deciding whether or to have a gun to protect your home delusional and assholish. Especially when the person who proposes to do the deciding is armed or has armed guards.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Originally posted by LC:
quote:
Yes indeed - unless they put in the training and practice
it isn't merely shooting at a target.
Ask anyone who has experienced war. Training helps, but training is much more than target practice. And nothing but being in the situation predicts how well one will react.

Originally posted by MN
quote:
Same here, but more people die in car wrecks than gun homicide.
Please tell me you are really not this stupid? Cars are not guns. Most of the comparisons used are just plain stupid.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
A thought experiment.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Originally posted by MN
quote:
Same here, but more people die in car wrecks than gun homicide.
Please tell me you are really not this stupid? Cars are not guns. Most of the comparisons used are just plain stupid. [/QB]
Of course cars are not guns. However, more people are killed in car wrecks then by gun homicide. If you want to read more in to it, that's your problem, not mine.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
Here is a summary of stun gun/ taser laws for each state, if anyone is interested. I guess it us up to date.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Originally posted by MN
quote:
Same here, but more people die in car wrecks than gun homicide.
Please tell me you are really not this stupid? Cars are not guns. Most of the comparisons used are just plain stupid.
Of course cars are not guns. However, more people are killed in car wrecks then by gun homicide. If you want to read more in to it, that's your problem, not mine. [/QB]
If you are implying nothing, why bring it into the discussion?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] Do you ever drive a car? Must you always add that people die in car wrecks?
No, primarily because (in this part of the world at least) it's possible to successfully use a car for its stated purpose a remarkable number of times before anything bad happens.
Same here, but more people die in car wrecks than gun homicide.
So the fuck what? Seriously, do you understand statistics so badly that you think an absolute number actually means something on its own?

Do you honestly believe that if device A kills it user once every 5 times, and device B kills its user once every 2,000,000 times, and millions of people are using device B daily whereas only one family is continuing to use device A occasionally, that device A would be better because it kills fewer people?

[ 15. October 2015, 22:28: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
According to Wikipedia the number of deaths caused by cars is very similar to the number of gun deaths, around 33,000 per year for both.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
it isn't merely shooting at a target.
Ask anyone who has experienced war. Training helps, but training is much more than target practice. And nothing but being in the situation predicts how well one will react.
...all of which applies to cops as well as to other people.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
So, given rate of use, cars are safer than guns to an incredible degree.
Still, not a legitimate comparison. Vehicles are a demonstrable necessity in urban, and many rural, environments.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
it isn't merely shooting at a target.
Ask anyone who has experienced war. Training helps, but training is much more than target practice. And nothing but being in the situation predicts how well one will react.
...all of which applies to cops as well as to other people.
Yes, but likely not in the way you mean.
Granted that American police are generally poorly trained and inconsistent between localities. But, generally speaking, their training deals with conflict and contact that almost none of the general public recieve.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Oh, and even if police are equal to the general public, it would be an argument for their not having weapons either, not you having them as well.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, given rate of use, cars are safer than guns to an incredible degree.
Still, not a legitimate comparison. Vehicles are a demonstrable necessity in urban, and many rural, environments.
Slight nit to pick. Urban environments are where cars are least necessary, if the city has decent public transportation. It's the burbs and rural areas that are impossible without a car.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
more people are killed in car wrecks then by gun homicide.
So fucking what? This is irrelevant. Totally, completely irrelevant.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, given rate of use, cars are safer than guns to an incredible degree.
Still, not a legitimate comparison. Vehicles are a demonstrable necessity in urban, and many rural, environments.
Slight nit to pick. Urban environments are where cars are least necessary, if the city has decent public transportation. It's the burbs and rural areas that are impossible without a car.
Also, cars are major contributors of CO2, are they not?

So they are actually killing everyone just a little each day, on top of the many people that they completely kill each day.

And they are not a necessity, as evidenced by the fact that for statistically all of human history we have survived without them, in both urban and rural environments.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The only relevant thing is that the number of people killed by cars has declined, especially as a proportion of the number of cars on the road/total miles driven. And, that reduction in deaths is a direct consequence of regulations - improvements in car design, requirements for drivers to undertake extensive training and pass a test to demonstrate they can control the car adequately and react sensibly to common situations that may occur while driving, legislation to ban driving while under the influence of drink or drugs and enforcement of those laws, mandatory insurance, etc etc.

If you're going to make the comparison, take it to the logical conclusion. Additional regulation of guns will reduce gun deaths.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Also, cars are major contributors of CO2, are they not?
Which is justification for further motor vehicle regulations, starting with emissions - which ultimately comes down to less car use, and therefore provision of alternative means of getting around eg: by public transport, safe cycle and walking routes, increased car share schemes, etc. But, banning SUVs would be a start.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Granted that American police are generally poorly trained and inconsistent between localities. But, generally speaking, their training deals with conflict and contact that almost none of the general public recieve.
I'm going to quote my previous comment.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Spend a lot more time on training and practice than Officer Friendly, and you shouldn't be surprised when you out-shoot him. It's not something that most people do do, but it's something that they are capable of doing.
I agree - most random people do not have as much training as a random cop. So what? Anyone who wants to spend the time and money can obtain such training.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Oh, and even if police are equal to the general public, it would be an argument for their not having weapons either, not you having them as well.
Sure. I'm in general pretty uncomfortable with many cops having guns, given the lack of skill they demonstrate. My uncomfortableness is somewhat tempered by the fact that most cops never fire their weapons, so the fact that they wouldn't hit the side of the barn is somewhat moot.

If I ever wanted to own a gun for self-defense, I would want significantly more training and practice than the average cop gets before I felt comfortable with the responsibility.

I'm not at all arguing that Joe Sixpack is going to do better than a random cop - I'm arguing that if he wants, he can develop better skills than the average cop has, and I seem to be faced with a wall of opinion that believes a blue uniform is somehow magic.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
requirements for drivers to undertake extensive training and pass a test to demonstrate they can control the car adequately and react sensibly to common situations that may occur while driving,
You've never taken a US test, have you? [Devil]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, given rate of use, cars are safer than guns to an incredible degree.
Still, not a legitimate comparison. Vehicles are a demonstrable necessity in urban, and many rural, environments.
Slight nit to pick. Urban environments are where cars are least necessary, if the city has decent public transportation. It's the burbs and rural areas that are impossible without a car.
Put that nit back!
For I said vehicles. But also, even the cities with the absolute most crowded public transportation, the streets are full of private vehicles.

Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:
And they are not a necessity, as evidenced by the fact that for statistically all of human history we have survived without them, in both urban and rural environments.
Stupid argument. No, really stupid. Unless you are proposing guns to thin the population to the point where antique transportation is sufficient.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
According to Wikipedia the number of deaths caused by cars is very similar to the number of gun deaths, around 33,000 per year for both.
My fellow Carolinian specified homicide in his post. Your number includes suicides, which are nearly 2/3 of the total.

I think there is a significant distinction between cars and guns that goes to the crux of the politics of the issue in the US. Driving is a privilege.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I think there is a significant distinction between cars and guns that goes to the crux of the politics of the issue in the US. Driving is a privilege.
To appropriate the words of my colleague down here: what the fuck is wrong with you people?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

I think there is a significant distinction between cars and guns that goes to the crux of the politics of the issue in the US. Driving is a privilege.
Oh, not this again.

This claim is pure nonsense. Driving is a right, as is liberty, being able to engage in commerce, raise children, and all the other normal things that people do all the time.

It's not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, but that's OK. The ninth amendment quite clearly says that there are other rights.

And if you screw up, your rights get taken away. Commit a crime, and you'll lose your right to liberty. Don't take proper care of your kids and you'll lose the right to raise them.

There's no constitutional bar at all for a gun-owner's license requiring some kind of reasonable proficiency test. It can't be made capricious (cf. voting tests for black folks), but it's legal. There's no political will or support for it, though.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
According to Wikipedia the number of deaths caused by cars is very similar to the number of gun deaths, around 33,000 per year for both.
My fellow Carolinian specified homicide in his post. Your number includes suicides, which are nearly 2/3 of the total.
Yes, well if someone is stupid enough to make an unfair comparison between gun homicide and all car deaths then it's only fair the field is levelled. I did that by comparing total gun deaths with total car deaths. Dead is dead, does it make much difference if by homicide or by accident?

Of course, many car deaths are suicides - either people deliberately stepping into traffic, or gassing themselves on exhaust fumes. I suppose some of those car deaths are homicides - we can't take our cars within sight of most airports these days after someone used their vehicle in an act of homicide.

quote:
I think there is a significant distinction between cars and guns that goes to the crux of the politics of the issue in the US. Driving is a privilege.
Yes, driving is a privilege. But, being able to wander into a school with a collection of guns and shoot down kids in their classes is a right? I feel like joining in the chorus of "what the fuck is wrong with you people?"
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
See, I want to say," shut the hell up, you cookie- eating motherfucker, Carol's a BADASS," but by saying that, I am saying, "A woman only earns the term badass when she becomes a female version of a gun toting, blood splashing male action figure fantasy," and that kind of has its fucked up side, don't you see?

I'm still a fan, but the thought does arise.

[ 16. October 2015, 03:01: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
MASSIVE page vertigo. Responding to this:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
No biggie, just a point of pride for me.

Although, returning to "Walking Dead" this season with this thread in mind has left a bad taste-- what is that show but an apologia for " frontier justice," when you come down to it? Some humans are not human anymore, and those who are human humans are justified in eridicating them.
Oh? I thought it was to promote the idea that women who are good at baking cookies, killing people and blowing shit up are great to have around unless they want to show you some flowers.

 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'm not really a gun proponent. I'm a proponent of the idea that you, orfeo, are more qualified than anyone else, the only one qualified, to make such a decision about such things in your life. If you want one, fine. If not, fine. It's your choice and your responsibility. It appears you don't have any guns. You do have a credibility that is completely lacking in any of our politicians who have armed guards yet try to lecture the rest of us. The can sod off.
Hear, hear.

I lived in DC during the gun ban. Being a city dweller, I did not want to own a gun, as it seemed to me that the risk/reward ratio was too skewed, so the ban didn't bother me. Right up until a guy repeatedly came to my front door (sliding glass) in order to try to peek through the curtain and masturbate.

Obviously I called the police, but they never came (a friend who was working on the force at the time said they were under orders to reduce crime by simply not taking crime reports). He never tried to get in, but all my police and military friends advised me to risk the legal consequences and buy a gun.

Didn't change my mind about the wisdom of an average urban or suburbanite keeping a gun in their home, but it did change my mind about whether or not the government should forbid it in all circumstances.

quote:
I believe it is impossible to calculate how many times guns have been used for protection. Should it be just how many times a gun was used? Shown? How many times would be burglars never even approached a property in the first place because of the thought folks might be armed?
Yep. It's an odd idea that a gun has to be fired in order to count as having been used for protection.

And unlike tasers, guns have legitimate uses beyond self defense. Doesn't make sense to have a gun for shooting vermin and a taser for self defense.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, being able to wander into a school with a collection of guns and shoot down kids in their classes is a right?
Oh, yeah, sure. As long as you're defining an act that's not only illegal but generally a death penalty offense as being a right.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, being able to wander into a school with a collection of guns and shoot down kids in their classes is a right?
Oh, yeah, sure. As long as you're defining an act that's not only illegal but generally a death penalty offense as being a right.
If you're going to postulate that being able to drive a car is a privilage but owning guns is a right then logically that is a right that is something everyone can enjoy. Therefore, anyone can have guns, and anyone who feels like doing something illegal with them has the ability to do so. And, they then face the legal consequences of their actions. If you're going to defend the right of everyone to bear arms then you're going to have to face the consequences of that - which include young men walking into schools and shooting kids.

On the other hand, if you're going to say that not everyone would be permitted to own a gun then it's not a right but a privilege. In which case the legislature is free to enact whatever restrictions it wasn't to limit that privilege (subject to not so royally pissing off the electorate that they have no hope of regaining their seats next election).
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I seem to be faced with a wall of opinion that believes a blue uniform is somehow magic.
Far from it. Just that the rest of the civilised world assumes a general level of competence from their police officers, and especially where it comes to firearms training. In the UK, they're trained to fuck, and they still make crashing mistakes - though they do at least tend to shoot the person they were intending to hit, even when they ought not to have.

Perhaps it's time you started taking guns away from cops unless they can demonstrate some degree of accuracy and discernment, as suggested above.
 
Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In the UK, they're trained to fuck,
I always assumed it was innate ability.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I lived in DC during the gun ban. Being a city dweller, I did not want to own a gun, as it seemed to me that the risk/reward ratio was too skewed, so the ban didn't bother me. Right up until a guy repeatedly came to my front door (sliding glass) in order to try to peek through the curtain and masturbate.

Obviously I called the police, but they never came (a friend who was working on the force at the time said they were under orders to reduce crime by simply not taking crime reports). He never tried to get in, but all my police and military friends advised me to risk the legal consequences and buy a gun.
What the fuck is wrong... No, in your case we already have a fair idea.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Perhaps it's time you started taking guns away from cops unless they can demonstrate some degree of accuracy and discernment, as suggested above.
I was out this evening at a student party (I'm still wondering since when student parties finish at 9.30pm on a Friday night ... but never mind that) and was talking with the captain of the University archery society. They shoot at 30cm diameter targets at 30m, and consider it a very poor day if less than 50% of their arrows are on target. I couldn't help but compare that with the 70% of shots on target, at less than a quarter of the distance, requirement previously quoted here for a concealed carry permit. And, the suggestion that police officers aren't significantly better than that. When it comes down to a choice between a group of cops with guns trained to US standards and a bunch of kids with bows and arrows I know what would make me feel safer.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Also, cars are major contributors of CO2, are they not?

So they are actually killing everyone just a little each day, on top of the many people that they completely kill each day.

And they are not a necessity, as evidenced by the fact that for statistically all of human history we have survived without them, in both urban and rural environments.
As an argument, that doesn't even rise to the level of arm-waving. Flailing, maybe. And the whole car analogy is a fail anyway. How about an abortion analogy? Abortion is a constitutional right too, after all. So maybe gun buyers should have to wait 48 hours before actually getting the gun. They should have to watch a gory video of what happens when people get shot. And there should be crowds in front of every gun shop screaming "WANNA-BE MURDERER!!!" at the customers.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Just that the rest of the civilised world assumes a general level of competence from their police officers, and especially where it comes to firearms training. In the UK, they're trained to fuck, and they still make crashing mistakes - though they do at least tend to shoot the person they were intending to hit, even when they ought not to have.
A UK firearms officer has enormously more firearms training than a typical US cop, and also has much more restrictive rules governing the use of his weapon. Of course, because there aren't very many AFOs, you can have good training without it being prohibitively expensive. I'd guess the secret service could probably shoot straight, too.

(Another news report today - cop stops teenage kid, cop shoots teenage kid with taser, kid is not immobilized, but does get angry, cop shoots kid dead. All because (allegedly) the kid flashed the cop because the cop had his brights on.)
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
And the whole car analogy is a fail anyway. How about an abortion analogy? Abortion is a constitutional right too, after all. So maybe gun buyers should have to wait 48 hours before actually getting the gun. They should have to watch a gory video of what happens when people get shot. And there should be crowds in front of every gun shop screaming "WANNA-BE MURDERER!!!" at the customers.
Heh. There is a meme going around that says just that, almost word for word. I posted it on my FB wall a week or so ago, along with the wish that someone would have the guts to say something like that on the floor of congress.

As for the emmissions thing-- romanlion is for some reason not telling you all that in most states, you cannot complete your yearly vehicle registration without submitting proof that your car has undergone a " smog test". So he is only pointing out another way that cars are more sensibly monitored than guns.

{Code fix, because fucking Ipad.]

[ 17. October 2015, 04:10: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
That's a "code-whoops", Kelly.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
See, I want to say," shut the hell up, you cookie- eating motherfucker, Carol's a BADASS," but by saying that, I am saying, "A woman only earns the term badass when she becomes a female version of a gun toting, blood splashing male action figure fantasy," and that kind of has its fucked up side, don't you see?

I'm still a fan, but the thought does arise.
In a world where the dead come back and eat folks, just what would "fucked up" mean?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
It means the show glorifies the fucked-up, Wild West video game fantasy that many gun defending Americans appear to live in.
On a related tangent, it is also Randian porn.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It means the show glorifies the fucked-up, Wild West video game fantasy that many gun defending Americans appear to live in.
On a related tangent, it is also Randian porn.
Yeah, well, that's just your opinion, man.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Abortion is a constitutional right too, after all.
Keep spewing shit like this while wondering why you can't get gun control legislation passed. Go on. (I've decided it's fun to watch the left eat itself.)
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Yeah, well, that's just your opinion, man.
That comment totally brings the thread together. The Dude abides.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It means the show glorifies the fucked-up, Wild West video game fantasy that many gun defending Americans appear to live in.
On a related tangent, it is also Randian porn.
I was about type an elaborate response, but this works as well as anything I can come up with.

Also Barnabas? You are clearly a zombie and I must aim for the head.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Abortion is a constitutional right too, after all.
Keep spewing shit like this while wondering why you can't get gun control legislation passed. Go on. (I've decided it's fun to watch the left eat itself.)
Shooting folks is just post birth abortion. What's the problem. I also heard some genius saying that owning people and guns were both wanted by your founding slave raping and breeding USA constipation writers so what's the problem with either
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
If the genius was an American political satirist advocating a rewrite of the second amendment, then you have been reading my FB page's mind as well.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Shooting folks is just post birth abortion. What's the problem. I also heard some genius saying that owning people and guns were both wanted by your founding slave raping and breeding USA constipation writers so what's the problem with either
Huh?

[ 17. October 2015, 23:43: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Shooting folks is just post birth abortion. What's the problem. I also heard some genius saying that owning people and guns were both wanted by your founding slave raping and breeding USA constipation writers so what's the problem with either
No, really, keep going.

quote:
I’m not sure I even know what to do with his slavery analogy, which is so incoherent that one suspects he threw it in the piece just to add that extra little seasoning of racial demagoguery that every far-Left essay needs. But really, Watkins makes everybody a winner. He gets to moralize, his fans get to enjoy their two minutes hate, and law-abiding gun owners are reminded, once again, at how poorly they’re understood and how much they’re despised.
I'm sure it'll be fun for you to watch the war from Canada.
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
Just catching up with this thread, and I noticed the comment from saysay about the man masturbating outside her house.
I would have thought that a bucket of cold water would have been more effective than a gun.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Or a taser.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It means the show glorifies the fucked-up, Wild West video game fantasy that many gun defending Americans appear to live in.
On a related tangent, it is also Randian porn.
“Access to women is the way for men to confirm their status, so the resentment is aimed at women, they’re not able to get that status. The resentment should really be towards the larger culture that makes these ridiculous definitions that men have to be dominant, have to be tall, have to be wealthy, all these kinds of things that really very few men can actually live up to."
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
I'm not sure if the big advert at the bottom for a "platoon rifle" with "consider your man card reissued", spoils or reaffirms it's point. [Frown]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I took it as an illustration of the problem.

ETA yeah, I just checked-- it's not really a working ad; clicking it does not redirect anywhere. It's a still from an ad to underline the point of the article.

[ 19. October 2015, 07:28: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Dad told the six year-old to leave the gun alone.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Dad told the six year-old to leave the gun alone.
Because six-year-olds always obey instructions, and you never find them, for example, sitting in a big pile of mess in a room they're not supposed to be in. [Mad]

Do these people also leave live exposed electrical conductors running around their home, and tell the kids "don't touch the metal"? Store bleach in a milk jug in the fridge, and tell the kids "don't drink the one on the left"? Or are they only stupid with guns?
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
All of the above. And they don't want no nanny state telling them how to raise their kids.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It is a sad and ugly way to do it, but these people are simply self-selecting themselves out of the gene pool. There is such a thing as too dumb to reproduce, and what could be more in that line than getting your own kids killed off.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
... There is such a thing as too dumb to reproduce ...
I was thinking something along those lines, BC - never mind not being allowed to have guns, maybe some people shouldn't be allowed to have children.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I would be happy to see all these open-carry people in their own town or state or whatever, where they can whip out the assault rifle whenever the barista puts the wrong kind of milk into their skinny latte, or open fire whenever the minister in the pulpit meant to cite 2 Peter but instead referenced 1 Peter. Alas, they are among us, which makes life much more unpleasant for all of us.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is a sad and ugly way to do it, but these people are simply self-selecting themselves out of the gene pool. There is such a thing as too dumb to reproduce, and what could be more in that line than getting your own kids killed off.
It isn't genetic, it s cultural. Read Kelly's link, it illustrates this.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I would be happy to see all these open-carry people in their own town or state or whatever, where they can whip out the assault rifle whenever. . . .
Every once in a while, talk of secession comes up. I say let them secede, and take their guns with them.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Do these people also leave live exposed electrical conductors running around their home, and tell the kids "don't touch the metal"? Store bleach in a milk jug in the fridge, and tell the kids "don't drink the one on the left"? Or are they only stupid with guns?
Most gun owners in the US are men. Most primary caregivers of children (and people who understand developmental stages and the reality that children frequently need to hear the same 'don't touch the stove it's hot' rule repeated multiple times etc.) are women. Most of the people who know proper gun safety and storage are men. Most of the people responsible for child-proofing the living space are women.

An awful lot of parents seem to suffer from the delusion that their children are too smart or know better than to touch or play with guns even if they have been given no explicit instruction when it comes to guns. Too many of them seem to believe that their children don't know where the guns are hidden when the kids do know.

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I would be happy to see all these open-carry people in their own town or state or whatever, where they can whip out the assault rifle whenever the barista puts the wrong kind of milk into their skinny latte, or open fire whenever the minister in the pulpit meant to cite 2 Peter but instead referenced 1 Peter. Alas, they are among us, which makes life much more unpleasant for all of us.
So open-carry advocates are now responsible for the fact that a gang member in Chicago had an illegal gun that was improperly stored in his home?

Have you ever actually met an open-carry advocate?

This thread just keeps getting more and more bizarre.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Another father buys a gun "for protection." His three-year-old son was shot and killed by his six-year-old brother.

[Votive]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

This thread just keeps getting more and more bizarre.
I know that I have a self-blindness sometimes, but damn.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
This thread just keeps getting more and more bizarre.
Indeed it does. Just now, I'm trying to figure out what this bizarre statement means.

quote:

Most gun owners in the US are men. Most primary caregivers of children (and people who understand developmental stages and the reality that children frequently need to hear the same 'don't touch the stove it's hot' rule repeated multiple times etc.) are women. Most of the people who know proper gun safety and storage are men. Most of the people responsible for child-proofing the living space are women.

 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
It's all the fault of entitled white women - didn't you get saysay's memo?
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

Have you ever actually met an open-carry advocate?

I met one. He moved to Colorado over 20 years ago and his brother told me at the time that the guy was openly carrying. If I've seen others, I don't recall. Everyone I still know that carries have taken the ccw course and carry concealed.

About that guy in DC who was at your window masturbating, did he get re-elected?
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
So open-carry advocates are now responsible for the fact that a gang member in Chicago had an illegal gun that was improperly stored in his home?

Have you ever actually met an open-carry advocate?

This thread just keeps getting more and more bizarre.
1) Ex-gang member. You read the article before casting aspersions, right? You also researched the relevant gun laws in his jurisdiction and the matters of particular fact before coming to the conclusion that the gun was possessed illegally?

Of course you didn't.

Even in DC, if you have reason to believe that your life is in danger for a specific reason—like, say, you snitched on your ex-gang—you are allowed to carry a handgun.

2) Met open carry advocates? Related to quite a few. Grew up with quite a few others. Judging by facebook, some of them are sane, normal, rational people who also own guns—mostly, those are the ones who are also veterans. Some of them are also trigger-happy egomaniacs who post constantly about "sheepdog" this and "civilians won't understand" that, despite having no military or more police background than volunteering a couple times a week. Those people scare me.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Oscar Pistorius is back home today after serving one year for shooting his girlfriend to death. He's a good example of the type who buys guns because he's scared all the time and thinks the guns will keep him safe. He's also the worst sort to have one because he's going to think every little noise in the night is an intruder.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Some of them are also trigger-happy egomaniacs who post constantly about "sheepdog" this and "civilians won't understand" that, despite having no military or more police background than volunteering a couple times a week. Those people scare me.
It seems they would come across as overbearing and boorish, a real drag to be around, gun or not.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Indeed it does. Just now, I'm trying to figure out what this bizarre statement means.
quote:

Most gun owners in the US are men. Most primary caregivers of children (and people who understand developmental stages and the reality that children frequently need to hear the same 'don't touch the stove it's hot' rule repeated multiple times etc.) are women. Most of the people who know proper gun safety and storage are men. Most of the people responsible for child-proofing the living space are women.
I'm not sure what's unclear. IME, people are sometimes stupid when it comes to kids and guns because there isn't necessarily a lot of overlap between the set of people who understand kids and the set of people who own guns and understand (adult) gun safety. There are a bunch of surveys out there indicating that a lot of women who know their husbands own guns don't know how the guns are stored or whether the NRA/pediatrician/etc. advice on safe storage (particularly in a household that includes children) are being followed.

You'd think most parents might ask about it after hearing enough stories about kids getting their hands on guns and accidentally shooting each other, but IME a lot of rural gun owners don't pay that much attention to the national news.

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
1) Ex-gang member. You read the article before casting aspersions, right?


I read multiple articles before "casting aspersions" (whatever that may mean). Most people I know who have worked with gangs don't believe there is such a thing as an "ex"-gang member. They don't tend to let you go.

quote:
You also researched the relevant gun laws in his jurisdiction and the matters of particular fact before coming to the conclusion that the gun was possessed illegally?

Of course you didn't.


No, I read multiple news articles that said it was an illegal gun purchased on the street from one of his "former" gang pals. Given the state of modern journalism, trusting anything a major news network says is probably stupid, but since I'm not planning on driving out to Chicago to investigate the issue myself, it's all I've got.

But of course you also did the relevant research in order to determine that this particular gun was legally purchased, owned, and stored and that's why strengthening gun control laws will totally work to prevent these kinds of tragedies in the future, right?

Of course not.

(Protect the narrative at all costs.)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
trigger-happy egomaniacs who post constantly about "sheepdog" this and "civilians won't understand" that, despite having no military or more police background
Obvious response to such comments from people who are civilians. "You won't understand either then".
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I'm not sure what's unclear. IME, people are sometimes stupid when it comes to kids and guns because there isn't necessarily a lot of overlap between the set of people who understand kids and the set of people who own guns and understand (adult) gun safety. There are a bunch of surveys out there indicating that a lot of women who know their husbands own guns don't know how the guns are stored or whether the NRA/pediatrician/etc. advice on safe storage (particularly in a household that includes children) are being followed.

You'd think most parents might ask about it after hearing enough stories about kids getting their hands on guns and accidentally shooting each other, but IME a lot of rural gun owners don't pay that much attention to the national news.
That isn't making things much clearer to me.

Two parents in a household with children. In the majority of cases I would expect both parents to be concerned about the safety and well being of their children, although they will probably express those concerns slightly differently. You seem to be suggesting that in households with guns both parents are less concerned with the safety of their children than in households without guns - the man who owns the guns because he may not think about safe storage properly, and his partner because she doesn't bother to check up on how her husband is keeping his guns.

That seems wrong to me. I can't see how owning guns means parents are less concerned about the safety of their children. Although it would indicate to me that they are mistaken (or have been misled) by believing having a gun in the house makes their children safer from some hypothetical intruder. Being in error about the safety of guns doesn't mean that they care less about their children than people who don't own guns.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That isn't making things much clearer to me.

Two parents in a household with children. In the majority of cases I would expect both parents to be concerned about the safety and well being of their children, although they will probably express those concerns slightly differently. You seem to be suggesting that in households with guns both parents are less concerned with the safety of their children than in households without guns - the man who owns the guns because he may not think about safe storage properly, and his partner because she doesn't bother to check up on how her husband is keeping his guns.
I don't mean to imply that in households with guns the parents are less concerned with the safety of their children than in households without guns. But there is also reality - children are impulsive and frequently unpredictable. They're curious and like to explore. They imitate the adults around them.

Guns are dangerous. There's an inherent risk/reward calculation that people need to make when it comes time to decide whether or not your household will contain guns. I grew up with guns in my house (there are times we likely would have starved without hunting). That doesn't change the danger of having guns in the house.

quote:
That seems wrong to me. I can't see how owning guns means parents are less concerned about the safety of their children. Although it would indicate to me that they are mistaken (or have been misled) by believing having a gun in the house makes their children safer from some hypothetical intruder. Being in error about the safety of guns doesn't mean that they care less about their children than people who don't own guns.
Of course being in error about the safety of guns or proper gun storage doesn't mean that the parents care less about their children than people who don't own guns. It means that they are in error - that they are wrong - about the risk/reward scenario of having a gun and storing it on the top of the fridge wrapped in pajama bottoms. It means... oh, fuck it.

Nobody's perfect, nobody knows everything. People die, and it's all just a game.

As it has always been, so shall it be. (Hated though it is).
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You seem to be suggesting that in households with guns both parents are less concerned with the safety of their children than in households without guns
I don't think I'd say that - but I'd probably expect there to be a reasonable correlation between attitudes towards safety and so on between members of a couple. Which means that someone who thinks that "loaded, in a pair of pyjama pants on the fridge" is a smart way to store a handgun in a house with small children probably has a partner who isn't the smartest pair of safety scissors in the drawer either.

Conversely, the kind of gun owners who manage to keep the kids out of the bleach and the medicine cabinet probably also keep the guns locked up.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Ah, so the discussion is about competancy rather than motive. All parents are motivated to look after their children. However, some are more competant at that task than others. I think I'd agree there (there may be a small number of exceptions where parents are not motivated to look after their children).

So, if it's a question of competancy to make the risk/benefit calculation does that mean you're advocating some for of competancy test before allowing an adult in a household including children to keep a gun at home? Or, at least a safe storage requirement that if violated would result in the removal of the permission to keep the gun at home? Would that require some form of enforcement to verify the gun is stored safely?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Ah, so the discussion is about competancy rather than motive. All parents are motivated to look after their children. However, some are more competant at that task than others. I think I'd agree there
[..]
does that mean you're advocating some for of competancy test before allowing an adult in a household including children to keep a gun at home?
Or a competency test before allowing an adult to keep a child at home?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
This thread is apparently bizarre enough just arguing about the right to have a gun (note in my last post I carefully talked about keeping a gun at home - your half-arsed Constitution may allow everyone to own a gun, it doesn't say that therefore they're allowed to keep that gun at home) without heading into the right to have children.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
without heading into the right to have children.
I didn't say anything about the right to have children - just about keeping them at home. [Devil]

[I can take neither credit nor blame for the US constitution - I just live here.]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
True. Boarding schools where children can be raised as proper Americans rather than gun totin' rednecks conspiring to rise in armed rebellion against their lawful and God-given government. We Brits should have thought of that before you lot got all uppity and demanded independence.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is a sad and ugly way to do it, but these people are simply self-selecting themselves out of the gene pool. There is such a thing as too dumb to reproduce, and what could be more in that line than getting your own kids killed off.
I can't even imagine the circumstances which would make me personally say anything that completely fucked up. I just can't wrap my mind around that.

[ 20. October 2015, 03:59: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
True. Boarding schools where children can be raised as proper Americans rather than gun totin' rednecks conspiring to rise in armed rebellion against their lawful and God-given government. We Brits should have thought of that before you lot got all uppity and demanded independence.
Boarding schools where children can be raised as proper Americans. Now what does that make me think of? Let me think. Let me think.

Oh yeah. What the Presbyterians did to the native Alaskans.

Pass.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Um, it kinda went on a little further south and east than Alaska also, but I'll give you the ideological point anyway.

[ 20. October 2015, 05:03: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Um, it kinda went on a little further south and east than Alaska also, but I'll give you the ideological point anyway.
That's the one I have read about most extensively. For obvious reasons.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Your reasons are not obvious to me. Why would you not include the rest of America?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
He's got the hots for Sarah Palin.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Not good.
Unless he shaves, she's likely to shoot him before she mounts him.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Your reasons are not obvious to me. Why would you not include the rest of America?
Well, in the West It was European Catholics who ran boarding schools, and on the East coast a variety of European miseionaries from various Christian churches, but in each case it was Europeans forcing a European culture on native Americans.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Self selection through unsafe child rearing practice simply doesn't begin to offset the inability to grasp birth control methods by these same people.

quote:
Which means that someone who thinks that "loaded, in a pair of pyjama pants on the fridge" is a smart way to store a handgun in a house with small children probably has a partner who isn't the smartest pair of safety scissors in the drawer either.

Conversely, the kind of gun owners who manage to keep the kids out of the bleach and the medicine cabinet probably also keep the guns locked up.
So it would seem. This mother thought it would be okay to leave the kids home alone while she went shopping because grandpa was handy in another apartment in the building. Evidently they had been hanging out with him in his apartment until his dog had an accident, so he sent these two tiny kids down to their apartment to get cleaning supplies -- evidently within easy access. The littlest one had supplied himself with macaroni and cheese and was feeding himself at the table when the accident happened. None of this says good parenting to me and covers three adults in the same family.

Mom is currently defending her husband on their "go fund me" website and seems proud of him for keeping a gun to protect the family.

The Idiocracy grows daily.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

The Idiocracy grows daily.
The YouTube channel Cracked has a vid that makes a case for Idiocracy being a utopia compared to what exists now. It is humour and it is not a treatise, but they do make a solid point: problems do not rise up from trailer parks and council estates, but flow down enclaves and country estates.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Heh! Good video, with some sneaky truth. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, if it's a question of competancy to make the risk/benefit calculation does that mean you're advocating some for of competancy test before allowing an adult in a household including children to keep a gun at home?
I live in a state where you have to pass a gun safety class in order to purchase a regulated gun. I don't have an inherent problem with such requirements.

Of course, that didn't stop 270 people in my city from being murdered so far this year with mostly unregulated guns. But it made the process of trying to buy a legal gun more expensive and time consuming, which some suspect was the point.

quote:
Or, at least a safe storage requirement that if violated would result in the removal of the permission to keep the gun at home?
There are states that have laws regulating such things. The problem is enforcement.

quote:
Would that require some form of enforcement to verify the gun is stored safely?
And how exactly do you propose to do such a thing?

Even if you could get Americans to agree to a licensing and storage requirement for guns, I don't think you'll find many who will agree that exercising their Second Amendment rights forfeits their Fourth Amendment rights.

Even if you somehow got people to agree that the safety of their children requires them to allow a government agent to periodically check that they are storing their guns properly (not going to happen, but let's pretend), enforcement would necessarily be limited to households that own guns that the government knows about. Which wouldn't have stopped this particular shooting, as the gun was illegal.

Please explain how this magical law works, and how you would go about enforcing it (without starting a civil war)? Please bear in mind that you are talking about a country where things like this happen and the police currently seem determined to prove that they don't discriminate against black and brown people by also killing and violating the rights of white people.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
There's an hierarchy here. If you don't listen to God, nor common sense, then Darwin gets you. He's at the bottom.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, if it's a question of competancy to make the risk/benefit calculation does that mean you're advocating some for of competancy test before allowing an adult in a household including children to keep a gun at home?
I live in a state where you have to pass a gun safety class in order to purchase a regulated gun. I don't have an inherent problem with such requirements.

Of course, that didn't stop 270 people in my city from being murdered so far this year with mostly unregulated guns. But it made the process of trying to buy a legal gun more expensive and time consuming, which some suspect was the point.
I would have said the point was to reduce the number of deaths and injuries caused by inappropriate use of licensed firearms. Reducing the number of licensed firearms by increasing the expense (both in time and money) to obtain the necessary licenses would also have that effect - every gun removed is one less that can be used inappropriately.

The other part of your comment is the number of illegally held firearms. That number will never be reduced while it is easy, and relatively inexpensive, to obtain guns legally. Increase the requirements to provide id and undergo background checks etc and it will be harder for criminals to obtain guns fraudulently from retailers. Make sure guns are locked away, and it will be harder for criminals to steal them from their legal owners.

quote:
quote:
Would that require some form of enforcement to verify the gun is stored safely?
And how exactly do you propose to do such a thing?
A first step would be that whenever someone goes into a hunting shop to buy a rifle they not only produce their license to have a gun with suitable id, but they also fill in the application to register that particular gun and part of that includes providing proof that they have a suitable storage facility (receipt of purchase, photographs of the cabinets in place), and in signing the application to register that gun sign that they agree to periodic verification that the gun is kept where they say they'll keep it. Which is, more or less, how the system works in the UK. In the UK there is also a requirement to report the theft of a registered gun - and, that can result in the loss of a license if it was deemed that the storage cupboard was inadequate to prevent the theft (which, did happen in the case of the husband of a friend when they had a break in where the thieves brought their own power tools to open the case).

I'm not sure of the relevance of the Fourth Amendment. An inspection of the storage of guns is not a search, just a walk up to the cabinet, check it's locked and the gun is inside, tick a box to say that's been done and go out again. I guess there could be a search and seizure if the gun isn't where it's supposed to be, but that's not exactly unreasonable and all it requires is for the inspector to phone a court and state that the gun isn't where it should be and ask for a warrant to search the property for that gun and to confiscate it when found. If you don't want people wandering through the house, keep the gun locked in the garage.

Do people use the Fourth Amendment to prevent employees of utility companies access to read the electricity meter?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not good.
Unless he shaves, she's likely to shoot him before she mounts him.
Kind of a human inverted-order preying mantis.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Do people use the Fourth Amendment to prevent employees of utility companies access to read the electricity meter? [/QB]
Heck, if that is the problem. Get them to bring the gun to a suitably safe place once a year.* Saves money too.

Gun S252-242, yep. Well done you've not sold it to someone** and then left people wondering how the cunning devils managed to got an illegal firearm. By the way do YOU keep it safely at home?

It would at least have some reminders for the trying to be good parents. And the willfully bad parents can't fool themselves after the fact. So would probably have a non too small effect. And also an effect on the illegal guns (especially if you did the same with stores).

*Any issues that can't be easily overcome, probably form an argument for stronger gun control.
**or at least if you have it's got a fairly traceable history.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A first step would be that whenever someone goes into a hunting shop to buy a rifle they not only produce their license to have a gun with suitable id, but they also fill in the application to register that particular gun and part of that includes providing proof that they have a suitable storage facility (receipt of purchase, photographs of the cabinets in place), and in signing the application to register that gun sign that they agree to periodic verification that the gun is kept where they say they'll keep it. Which is, more or less, how the system works in the UK. In the UK there is also a requirement to report the theft of a registered gun - and, that can result in the loss of a license if it was deemed that the storage cupboard was inadequate to prevent the theft (which, did happen in the case of the husband of a friend when they had a break in where the thieves brought their own power tools to open the case).
Sounds like San Francisco. Fails the don't-start-a-civil-war requirement. Most Americans would move to San Francisco if they wanted to be micromanaged like that. I don't even know where to start...

The feds have messed around with the ID requirements so much that it's no longer possible for some people in some states to get a qualifying government ID. Requiring government IDs for guns but not voting will never fly. Mandating that registered gun owners report the theft of their guns (which most do anyway in case it is later used in a crime) only works if the police take reports. Where is this data stored? How is it shared between states? How are you handling the reality that most states have multiple people with the same name, and that this problem explodes when you start trying to compile data from multiple states? Do you have any idea how big the US is or how many people it contains?

Believing that the US government could successfully track all firearm purchases and (if they somehow managed that) that certain people wouldn't abuse the knowledge requires a leap of faith that most Americans aren't willing to make.

People will never agree to a plan that makes their second amendment right to bear arms contingent on periodic visits by a governmental agent. Maybe 'never' is a bit much. But we'd have to have a government that showed it respected its citizens constitutional rights. We haven't had one of those in a long time.

Of course, your proposal was somewhat vague. The periodic visits could be by the gun sellers, no? In which case expect that all sellers who actually conduct such visits driven out of business by those who don't.

quote:
I'm not sure of the relevance of the Fourth Amendment. An inspection of the storage of guns is not a search, just a walk up to the cabinet, check it's locked and the gun is inside, tick a box to say that's been done and go out again.
Never talk to cops. Never allow a government employee in your home. Accepting any sort of federal aid or public assistance is likely to be met with a demand for sex or blood.

This is basic stuff.

I understand how certain people justify obviously unreasonable searches (but the dog gave me permission! etc). But I'm less clear on how a reasonable person can believe that allowing a government worker into your home in order to check on how your guns are stored isn't inherently unreasonable.

quote:
I guess there could be a search and seizure if the gun isn't where it's supposed to be, but that's not exactly unreasonable and all it requires is for the inspector to phone a court and state that the gun isn't where it should be and ask for a warrant to search the property for that gun and to confiscate it when found. If you don't want people wandering through the house, keep the gun locked in the garage.
Not every gun owner has a garage, and... yeah. It's not unreasonable for the government to search your property and confiscate a gun "if the gun isn't where it should be"?

Apparently we live on different planets.

quote:
Do people use the Fourth Amendment to prevent employees of utility companies access to read the electricity meter?
Employees of the utility companies are not government employees. At most they can shut your electricity or water off. They don't get to deprive you of life, liberty, and/or property on a whim, without consequences, the way government employees can. Also, they don't come inside your home. Also, unlike with the government, your relationship with a particular utility company is voluntary. If its employees misbehave you can terminate your relationship.

Yeah, there's no analogy there.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Apparently we live on different planets.
Agreed, mine's called Earth. What's the name of your planet?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A first step would be that whenever someone goes into a hunting shop to buy a rifle they not only produce their license to have a gun with suitable id, but they also fill in the application to register that particular gun and part of that includes providing proof that they have a suitable storage facility (receipt of purchase, photographs of the cabinets in place), and in signing the application to register that gun sign that they agree to periodic verification that the gun is kept where they say they'll keep it. Which is, more or less, how the system works in the UK. In the UK there is also a requirement to report the theft of a registered gun - and, that can result in the loss of a license if it was deemed that the storage cupboard was inadequate to prevent the theft (which, did happen in the case of the husband of a friend when they had a break in where the thieves brought their own power tools to open the case).
Sounds like San Francisco. Fails the don't-start-a-civil-war requirement. Most Americans would move to San Francisco if they wanted to be micromanaged like that. I don't even know where to start...

Nothing to do with the gun control laws, babe, that's probably a selling point to live here. Check the apartment rental rates.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Sounds like San Francisco.
Two questions immediately jump out from the article. The first is the fairly obvious one of jurisdiction - SF passes a law, the authorities above the city that can judge whether they are able to pass that law should (logically) be the State of California and then the Federal government. What gives other states a say in the question (unless, of course, the Federal government says "we need a nationwide law on this issue")?

The second was from the end of the article. If someone is in such a state that they are unable to open a lock or remember a combination, in what sense are they in a reasonable state to fire a gun? If someone is (at a given time) incompetant to put a key in a padlock, then surely they are (at that time) incompetant to handle a lethal weapon.

quote:
The feds have messed around with the ID requirements so much that it's no longer possible for some people in some states to get a qualifying government ID. Requiring government IDs for guns but not voting will never fly.
I quite agree. Though whether it's the feds or the state governments responsible for the disgraceful fiasco that has developed over voter ID is a (largely irrelevant to this discussion) point for debate. I said way back near the beginning of this thread that there are a range of issues in the US that a directly or indirectly related to the appalling death toll from guns, that included social and racial inequalities. The voter ID issues seem to largely fall into the category of social and racial - when states start to close offices where people can get driving licenses or other recognised ID in poor, black areas but not affluent, largely white areas then race and social status certainly appears to be involved.

Availability of ID is an issue in being able to vote. It's an issue in any (potential) gun registration scheme. These are not separate issues. And certainly if people are denied a chance to vote because someone is preventing them from getting ID that needs to be sorted out pronto, that is a denial of a fundamental right in a democracy. Make it possible for people to get ID and register to vote through the local post office. Set up mobile offices that visit each neighbour frequently (and, make that more frequent as election time approaches) where people can get their ID and register to vote. Sort out a big problem, and coincidentally solve the less serious one of enabling people to register their guns.

quote:
Mandating that registered gun owners report the theft of their guns (which most do anyway in case it is later used in a crime) only works if the police take reports. Where is this data stored? How is it shared between states? How are you handling the reality that most states have multiple people with the same name, and that this problem explodes when you start trying to compile data from multiple states? Do you have any idea how big the US is or how many people it contains?
Police record keeping, sharing relevant information between agencies within a state and between states and the federal government etc are all issues that should be improved regardless of any gun control issues. If the US law enforcement systems are in such a level of disarray that reported crimes do not get entered into the police records, important data can't be shared between states, etc then something is seriously wrong there anyway.

How big is the US? Not much different from Europe, and in most of Europe there doesn't appear to be this inability to enter reports of crimes into the computer, nor for neighbouring forces to work together when appropriate, even forces in different nations with different languages.

quote:
People will never agree to a plan that makes their second amendment right to bear arms contingent on periodic visits by a governmental agent. Maybe 'never' is a bit much. But we'd have to have a government that showed it respected its citizens constitutional rights. We haven't had one of those in a long time.
So, get people together and form soem well organised militia if you're so set on upholding the Second Amendment. The Amendment itself makes the bearing of arms contingent on that.

quote:
Of course, your proposal was somewhat vague. The periodic visits could be by the gun sellers, no? In which case expect that all sellers who actually conduct such visits driven out of business by those who don't.

Yes, deliberately vague. I'm not an American. At the end of the day it's going to be up to US citizens to decide what they want - gun control, if so in what form, or continued mass shootings, toddlers accidentally killing themselves or others, and easy access to guns by criminals.

Why shouldn't gun retailers be required to take all reasonable steps to prevent the guns and ammo they sell fall into the hands of criminals or children? If they fail to do that, revoke their license to sell guns. Then all retailers will conduct the necessary inspections if they want to stay in business, and the playing field will be level.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Two questions immediately jump out from the article. The first is the fairly obvious one of jurisdiction - SF passes a law, the authorities above the city that can judge whether they are able to pass that law should (logically) be the State of California and then the Federal government.
Not quite. The question of whether SF is able to pass a law is one of law, and so is judged by the courts, not any "superior" legislature.

If the state preempts municipalities in a particular sphere (like, for example, gun control), then the state would need to take action in the state court system in order to prevent a city from having such a law on its books. In this case, the supreme court of the state of California would be the highest authority - I don't know whether such a case would be eligible for appeal to the US supreme court. If the state constitution was violated by the city law, then the state courts would again be the venue for dispute.

If the federal government preempts states and localities, it will take action in the federal court system. Similarly, action alleging violation of the US constitution would arise in the federal court system, where the US supreme court is the ultimate authority.


In this case, the 26 states are filing amicus briefs - acting as a "friend of the court" and giving their legal opinions on a case before the court.

The case is a number of individual Californians, the NRA and the San Fransisco Veteran Police Officer's Association taking action in the US Supreme Court, alleging that San Francisco's law violates the Second Amendment.

The 26 other states aren't parties to the case directly, but have an interest in the question of how the US constitution touches on the regulation of safe gun storage, and so have grounds to file a brief as amicus curiae (friends of the court).
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
We have 52 states now?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I thought it was noted a few pages back that Canada had joined the US.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I thought it was noted a few pages back that Canada had joined the US.
Okay, so that's 51. What's 52?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Quebec, of course. Finally got to exert some independence.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We have 52 states now?
Same 26. Clumsy English. Consider me thwacked. [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Quebec, of course. Finally got to exert some independence.
Don't forget that No Prophet, etc's butt sucked up Montana. We're still down one.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Can we just add a State of Confusion?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I think Oregon and California are competing for that title.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
From the suit against California's proposals to keep handguns locked up when in the house.
quote:
“It is common to fumble with keys while trying to hurriedly unlock a door, to forget a series of numbers when under pressure, or to struggle with hand-eye coordination when subjected to stressors.”
Mousethief Technologies had better come up with a better irony meter soon...
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Here's one that fits both our traffic gits and gun threads.

A father with two kids in the vehicle and another man get involved in a road rage battle that includes cussing and cutting each other off until one of them takes out his gun and shoots. Killing the four year-old in the back seat. Sympathy is pouring out for the family -- as it should -- but the fact remains that if the father had just let it go his daughter would still be alive.

The murderer was probably keeping that gun in his glove box "for protection."
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
See the thing here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34602621 is the far lower number of deaths nad injuries - than you'd get with the same guy carrying a firearm.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
Another school shooting. Unfortunately for them, the gun nuts won't be able to blame this on "mental health". And there aren't enough bodies to make it a mass shooting. But when someone has a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Like this guy.

Fucking guns. And fuck all the idiots who buy guns thinking this can't happen to them because only crazies and "bad guys" shoot people.
 
Posted by Dee. (# 5681) on :
 
Who fucking does this? and what kind of society continues to allow this level of weaponry to be available so easily.

Another tragedy, More innocents slaughtered, more hand wringing and more NRA, right wing, red neck morns justifying their constitutional right to own weapons that have no use but to kill a lot of human beings horribly.
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
But there's no way to prevent this.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dee.:
Who fucking does this? and what kind of society continues to allow this level of weaponry to be available so easily.
The kind of society that doesn't pay attention to most shootings that injure at least four people.
 
Posted by Dee. (# 5681) on :
 
Yeah Right...
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Guessing from the target this will turn out to be an anti Obama care type thing.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Once is tragedy, 994 in 1004 days is ... insane.

America the farcical.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Amont other things, the San Bernadino shooting is causing people to denounce prayer.
Without works, the words are empty.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
Yeah, because that'll improve the rhetorical atmosphere of the country.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Guessing from the target this will turn out to be an anti Obama care type thing.
Good thing guesses are free, cause you're gonna need at least one more...
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Whats your theory ?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
One male, one female, tactical gear and semi-auto rifles?

Oh, I don't know....

Not Obamacare though.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
What's your theory, then?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
What's your theory, then?
My latest theory is that you can't read.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
What's your theory, then?
My latest theory is that you can't read.
This is such a helpful contribution to the conversation. Oh wait, it's romanlion. What was I thinking, expecting helpful contributions? My bad. Irrationality is unlikely to produce helpful contributions, and romanlion is irrational on this subject.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
What's your theory, then?
My latest theory is that you can't read.
This is such a helpful contribution to the conversation. Oh wait, it's romanlion. What was I thinking, expecting helpful contributions? My bad. Irrationality is unlikely to produce helpful contributions, and romanlion is irrational on this subject.
This is Hell, asshole. Go fuck yourself.

Give me the rational argument for an "Obamacare" connection to what happened today, shit-for-brains.

Until then, if you want helpful contributions, pick another fucking board you fat sack of shit.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
What's your theory, then?
My latest theory is that you can't read.
This is such a helpful contribution to the conversation. Oh wait, it's romanlion. What was I thinking, expecting helpful contributions? My bad. Irrationality is unlikely to produce helpful contributions, and romanlion is irrational on this subject.
This is Hell, asshole. Go fuck yourself.

Give me the rational argument for an "Obamacare" connection to what happened today, shit-for-brains.

Until then, if you want helpful contributions, pick another fucking board you fat sack of shit.
Thank you for the proof. It could have taken me seconds to come up with proof of your irrationality, but you delivered it with a bow.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
One male, one female, tactical gear and semi-auto rifles?

Oh, I don't know....

Not Obamacare though.
So, why was that particular event targetted? Why attack a public health social event?

Either the target was picked at random or it was picked because that was part of the statement the terrorists wished to make. If it was to make a statement, then the obvious conclusion is that it relates to public health and health care provision.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, why was that particular event targetted? Why attack a public health social event?
I believe I read somewhere that one of the attackers had been a guest at the party that was attacked. So without knowing anything more, there's scope for a more personal element in the motive.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, why was that particular event targetted? Why attack a public health social event?
I believe I read somewhere that one of the attackers had been a guest at the party that was attacked. So without knowing anything more, there's scope for a more personal element in the motive.
Bingo. The building is said to include a conference/function centre. Which means people from elsewhere can hire said centre.

Which quite possibly means we're looking at a demented version of "office Christmas party gone wrong", in a culture that continues to subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) push the notion that it is right and proper to resolve your personal conflicts with violence.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, why was that particular event targetted? Why attack a public health social event?
I believe I read somewhere that one of the attackers had been a guest at the party that was attacked. So without knowing anything more, there's scope for a more personal element in the motive.
That had not been in any of the reports I'd seen this morning. But, I'm busy and haven't had the time to read everything.

As orfeo said, it could be a Christmas party gone wrong. We've probably all experienced a party when there's been a bit too much drunk, someone says something stupid and gets punched for it, and then goes home to nurse their wounds and hurt pride. Usually things have calmed down and cleared up not long after the hang-over has faded. But, most of us don't live in places where someone could go home, get dressed up in combat gear and grab a couple of assault rifles to return to the party to settle the grievance once and for all.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
The room was hired out for a party for San Bernardino County health workers. It seems that someone at the party left and came back with a second person and they shot the place up. But officials are also saying they don't know for a fact that the person who left was one of the people who did the shooting. They're not even clear right now about whether it was two people or three. There is one named suspect: Syed Farook - a person with that name works for the SB Health Dept as an environmental health specialist. The LA chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations has felt the need to hold a press conference, though I can't find anything on it beyond a brief mention in the LA Times about Farook's brother-in-law being at the press conference, saying he didn't know why Farook would have done such a thing. (Anyone interested in actual facts, as opposed to speculation, can read the LA Times.)

So this could be international terrorism, domestic terrorism, or a disgruntled worker. Or something else.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
(Anyone interested in actual facts, as opposed to speculation, can read the LA Times.)
Or check out the local paper, the San Bernardino Sun.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Thanks for the link, Ruth. I'd avoided most of the news coverage*, but I skimmed through the article.

Since one of the suspects worked with the people at the party, it may well be that something had built up over the years. But the amount of weapons may mean it's a lot more complicated.

Maybe these were people who had a lot of weapons on hand, and something was said/done at the party, and the guy went home and armed up, and brought people with him.

*Not because I don't care; but because I do, and it's more than I can handle, and I can't fix it, and I'm having a bad day.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Interesting article. A male female shooter pair is extremely unusual. I wonder if they left their baby with anyone before the attack.
 
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :
 
Just finished watching the local news. Apparently the suspects were husband and wife, who left their baby daughter with grandparents while they went to do their dirty work. I'll never understand people... Relatives are shocked and never saw this coming.

I used to work about a block from the shootout with the suspects in their SUV and about a half mile from the Inland Regional Center.

Another fourteen people senselessly killed while the politicians sit on their hands.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
And, according to the update on the LA Times article, at least some of the guns were legally owned. Which doesn't seem to be much of a surprise.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Oh yeah, and most/all of his gun related crap will turn out to have been legally owned.
Deja vu
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
When thousands of people the FBI considers to be potential terrorists or supporters of terrorists can legally buy guns in the US, then it shouldn't be a surprise when some of those guns get used by terrorists. I think even Republicans and the NRA should be able to see that ... though maybe not.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
When thousands of people the FBI considers to be potential terrorists or supporters of terrorists can legally buy guns in the US, then it shouldn't be a surprise when some of those guns get used by terrorists. I think even Republicans and the NRA should be able to see that ... though maybe not.
Should be a fairly simple fix to prevent that from happening. Certainly if they can't board a plane they shouldn't be able to buy a firearm. Ultimately wouldn't make a difference, but an easy cross-check to make.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
When thousands of people the FBI considers to be potential terrorists or supporters of terrorists can legally buy guns in the US, then it shouldn't be a surprise when some of those guns get used by terrorists. I think even Republicans and the NRA should be able to see that ... though maybe not.
Should be a fairly simple fix to prevent that from happening. Certainly if they can't board a plane they shouldn't be able to buy a firearm. Ultimately wouldn't make a difference, but an easy cross-check to make.
You could turn it round and enhance it a bit. If someone has ever bought or owned a firearm, block them from air travel.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
At least they somehow had the sense/compassion to leave their daughter with someone, rather than carting her along or leaving her alone.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
SS--

That would

a) cut way down on air travel, and cost the airlines a lot of money;

b) created a booming industry in easily-available fake IDs;

and

c) quite possibly spur a whole lot of open carry folks to flood airports.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re legally-available guns:

Limiting them might prevent household shootings and accidents. But lots of people, criminals and not, would find other ways to get guns--second-hand, gun shows, probably online, and whatever ways criminals currently get illegal weapons.

And then there's DIY, like 3D printers.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
SS--

That would

a) cut way down on air travel, and cost the airlines a lot of money;

b) created a booming industry in easily-available fake IDs;

and

c) quite possibly spur a whole lot of open carry folks to flood airports.
All good stuff GK but:

i) This is Hell

ii) I was (as usual) pissed off with romanlion therefore

iii) I was running at his level of argument.

Then again, I detest air travel and will do anything to discourage it.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Fair enough. [Smile] I wasn't sure which way you meant it.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
The land of the free and home of the brave: if freedom to "bear arms" is going to be supported then you must accept that mass-shootings are more likely.

The attack in San Bernardino brings to 352 the number of mass shootings in 2015, and means there are likely to be another 30 before 2016.

If the majority of the voting population in the US refuse to see the link between gun availability (and access to explosives, etc) and mass shootings then they must accept that this sort of event is going to keep on happening.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re legally-available guns:

Limiting them might prevent household shootings and accidents. But lots of people, criminals and not, would find other ways to get guns--second-hand, gun shows, probably online, and whatever ways criminals currently get illegal weapons.

And then there's DIY, like 3D printers.
Yes, let's just ignore the fact that other countries with lesser legal availability of weapons also have lesser rates of this kind of thing. Couldn't be any connection. Best leave the laws as they are.

While we're at it, let's not use any legal measures to discourage smoking. People will continue to smoke at exactly the same rate whether we restrict where they can do it or not. And people won't wear seatbelts more often if we make wearing one a legal requirement.

I know that's not literally what you're saying, but any time I see a variation of people pointing out that any rule change won't achieve a 100% reduction in events I want to [brick wall] . Demanding the perfect is the enemy of the good, and more often than not it's a fallacious argument generated by people who want to reject all change. But whether a new approach is perfect is not a sensible question. The real world question is always whether it would be better.

[ 03. December 2015, 11:15: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
In my perception, any nation which is prepared to accept this sort of thing as some sort of collateral damage for their ability to willy-wave doesn't deserve much sympathy. If you can't legislate to address it in a democracy, you have to accept that the voters are prepared to tolerate the status quo. Whenever I see the latest aberration on the news I tend to just shake my head, shrug my shoulders, and move on. I hardly even think of the victims any more, so desensitized have I become in the face of these relentlessly predictable occurrences.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
lots of people, criminals and not, would find other ways to get guns--second-hand, gun shows, probably online, and whatever ways criminals currently get illegal weapons.
Well, for a start logic says that if you have some form of requirements for background checks and licenses that those requirements cover any means of buying guns. Make the law regarding license requirements the same for a gun-store, online retailer, gun-show merchant or pawn shop. It's fucking stupid if someone tries to buy a gun in a shop and fails because they can't satisfy the background check requirements, but they can then get the same gun online or at a gun show.

I saw some research a few months ago (and I can't be bothered to find it) that tracked where criminals got their guns. The main sources were a very small number of retailers who failed to check IDs properly and sold a large number of guns that ended up in the hands of criminals - the articles I saw said that at one time law enforcement agencies were able to "name and shame" these retailers, often forcing them out of business, but the NRA had blocked that tactic allowing these rouge retailers to continue to supply guns to criminals. Another major source was guns legally purchased in one jurisdiction that were then transported into areas with stricter gun laws. The other major route by which criminals get guns is by simply stealing them from the homes and vehicles of people who legally hold guns (which means if you buy guns to protect yourself or your property then you make yourself a target for thieves, and thieves who enter your home expecting you to be armed and so also likely to be armed).
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Passer, L'Organist, and others, can we stop talking about "any nation" and other terms that lump all Americans in one boat? I bloody well don't have to accept this situation when I'm opposed to the set-up that makes it easier.
 
Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :
 
I am sure that the law enforcement officers dealing with the latest mass shooting are very pleased that the weapons used were purchased legally, and so were the [mostly dead] victims. Glad to see that idiots sometimes follow the law.
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Passer, L'Organist, and others, can we stop talking about "any nation" and other terms that lump all Americans in one boat? I bloody well don't have to accept this situation when I'm opposed to the set-up that makes it easier.
No personal offence intended. However, this is a peculiarly American problem, no getting away from it. As a non-American there is precisely nothing I can do to solve it.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Passer, L'Organist, and others, can we stop talking about "any nation" and other terms that lump all Americans in one boat? I bloody well don't have to accept this situation when I'm opposed to the set-up that makes it easier.
How loud are those who are in favour of gun control shouting? I don't hear them.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
There are plenty of Americans saying they want tighter gun control.

They get drowned out by the NRA because money talks. And the NRA has lots of it.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Passer, L'Organist, and others, can we stop talking about "any nation" and other terms that lump all Americans in one boat? I bloody well don't have to accept this situation when I'm opposed to the set-up that makes it easier.
How loud are those who are in favour of gun control shouting? I don't hear them.
Like those in Britain arguing against Osborne's fake austerity policies. Plenty of noise on social media, bugger all on mass media (TV, radio and the press) because, over here too, money talks.

Remember the Golden Rule: Them 'as got the gold, makes the rules.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Gun makers love it.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
There seems to be an understandable amount of speculation as to the reason (if you can call it such) behind the shooting (terrorism/disgruntled employee/drunken argument/whatever).

While I can appreciate that the law-enforcement authorities probably had little choice but to shoot the perpetrators to avoid any more innocent bloodshed, that has rather removed any chance of anyone finding out.

[ 03. December 2015, 16:56: Message edited by: Piglet ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Passer, L'Organist, and others, can we stop talking about "any nation" and other terms that lump all Americans in one boat? I bloody well don't have to accept this situation when I'm opposed to the set-up that makes it easier.
No, not all Americans masturbate in front of their gun collection wearing tinfoil hats so the government can't hear their thoughts. But enough people elect lawmakers who serve those who make money from guns being available.
Enough people who would like better gun control opt towards less because they are afraid of too much.
Not all Americans, but enough.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Fine. So does that mean that those of us in the (effective) minority have to put up with being scolded, derided, and told to "just deal with it"?

If I'm responsible for the choices of others until I can make them choose differently, it's going to be a long, long life.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
No personal offence intended. However, this is a peculiarly American problem, no getting away from it. As a non-American there is precisely nothing I can do to solve it.
No one is fucking asking you to solve it. But avoiding blanket generalizations would make life easier for those of us who do have to solve it.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Fine. So does that mean that those of us in the (effective) minority have to put up with being scolded, derided, and told to "just deal with it"?
Not what I am saying. In response to the Damn American comments, the typical response is "Not all of us". and this is true. However, it is just not as simple as Sane v. Insane, Anti v. Pro.
It is the middle that supports the outcomes.
I think the detractors of America should be more nuanced. But I also think that Americans* need to recognise the nuance of their own reality as well.
Not that you do not, but clearly most people don't.

*Goes to everywhere, but Americans are who we are addressing with this issue.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
There's a interweb meme just now, conflating guns and abortion. I think it's worthy. It goes approximately: How about we (by this we = Americans) treat every man who wants a gun like a woman who wants an abortion. 48 hr wait, video to watch about gun violence, someone to counsel him against it, close all the gun stores nearby, make him travel 4 or 10 hours away, make him walk through a crowd showing bloody pictures of people who've shot, get called a murderer. And an intrusive ultra sound just to keep it all even.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There's a interweb meme just now, conflating guns and abortion. I think it's worthy. It goes approximately: How about we (by this we = Americans) treat every man who wants a gun like a woman who wants an abortion. 48 hr wait, video to watch about gun violence, someone to counsel him against it, close all the gun stores nearby, make him travel 4 or 10 hours away, make him walk through a crowd showing bloody pictures of people who've shot, get called a murderer. And an intrusive ultra sound just to keep it all even.
I hope you plan to include women who want guns as well.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There's a interweb meme just now, conflating guns and abortion. I think it's worthy. It goes approximately: How about we (by this we = Americans) treat every man who wants a gun like a woman who wants an abortion. 48 hr wait, video to watch about gun violence, someone to counsel him against it, close all the gun stores nearby, make him travel 4 or 10 hours away, make him walk through a crowd showing bloody pictures of people who've shot, get called a murderer. And an intrusive ultra sound just to keep it all even.
The "Brady Law" had a cooling-off period for gun purchases (five days, if I remember). The data is, I think, consistent with this having reduced the number of gun suicides a little bit. It didn't have much other effect. In particular, perpetrators of mass killings seem to spend a long time nursing their grievances before they take action, so it's unlikely a cooling-off period for gun purchases would make a difference.

People are, of course, free to stand outside gun stores with pictures of people who have been shot, and call gun store customers whatever they like, in exactly the same manner that people stand outside clinics that perform abortions.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
I suppose the tipping point will be when the 'freedom' to carry guns conflicts with the 'freedom' to go about an ordinary civil life without being shot. The impression, outside the US, is that that point has long since been reached. Even though I've been to the US many time without being murdered even once, I would be very reluctant to go again.

But presumably most American's don't yet feel they're living in a war zone?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Fine. So does that mean that those of us in the (effective) minority have to put up with being scolded, derided, and told to "just deal with it"?
Not what I am saying. In response to the Damn American comments, the typical response is "Not all of us". and this is true. However, it is just not as simple as Sane v. Insane, Anti v. Pro.
It is the middle that supports the outcomes.
I think the detractors of America should be more nuanced. But I also think that Americans* need to recognise the nuance of their own reality as well.
Not that you do not, but clearly most people don't.

*Goes to everywhere, but Americans are who we are addressing with this issue.
So is it too much to ask that people identify correctly the ones they want to whale on?

Examples follow for the hard-of-thinking:

idiot gun owners, NRA, fools-who-don't-agree-with-me, Americans who are happy with the status quo
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

But presumably most American's don't yet feel they're living in a war zone?
No - because it isn't true. About 30,000 people are killed per year with guns in the US. Obviously that's far too many, but it's the same number as people who are killed in car accidents, and most Americans don't feel they're living in a car crash zone either.

Two thirds of those gun deaths are suicides, which don't contribute to any kind of "war zone" feeling.

If you're a young black man, you may well feel as though you're in a war zone - not so much because of the number of young black men that are killed by police officers, but because those form a small fraction of a very much larger pattern of casual intimidation and violence against young black men.

You don't get that with these kinds of spree killings. You get the killing, but there's no matching collection of violence without killing happening 100 times more often.
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
Well, I have come to treat driving as a war zone. I try not to do anything (no matter how much I may be in the right) that might irritate another driver for fear the respone may be a road rage shooting. Fucking omnipresent guns again.
 
Posted by Dee. (# 5681) on :
 
After all of this Americans must be crazy or fucking stupid to allow gun tv, a home shopping channel!

[ 04. December 2015, 00:26: Message edited by: Dee. ]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There's a interweb meme just now, conflating guns and abortion. I think it's worthy.
I think it's one of the dumbest fucking things I've ever heard.

Every single abortion ends in death. About a million of 'em a year.

We buy tens of millions of guns each year in the US. An incredibly tiny percentage of those are involved in a death of any kind, and a majority of those are suicides.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There's a interweb meme just now, conflating guns and abortion. I think it's worthy.
I think it's one of the dumbest fucking things I've ever heard.

Every single abortion ends in death. About a million of 'em a year.

We buy tens of millions of guns each year in the US. An incredibly tiny percentage of those are involved in a death of any kind, and a majority of those are suicides.
Then if all the billions of dollars wasted on guns was available for childcare, a lot of those abortions might never have been necessary.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Well, I have come to treat driving as a war zone. I try not to do anything (no matter how much I may be in the right) that might irritate another driver for fear the respone may be a road rage shooting. Fucking omnipresent guns again.
Huh. And I try not to do anything that might get me pulled over and beaten, sexually assaulted, or killed by a cop. Fucking omnipresent government again.

I'm pretty sure my fear is more realistic. (Seriously, how often do you hear about road rage incidents? Because the current murder rate in my city is 1 in 2,000 and I never hear about them.)
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
I live in metro Los Angeles, almost certainly the road rage capital of the world. The term was first used in a news cast here, after a spate of local highway shootings.
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There's a interweb meme just now, conflating guns and abortion. I think it's worthy.
I think it's one of the dumbest fucking things I've ever heard.

Every single abortion ends in death. About a million of 'em a year.
That makes sense to only someone who believes people can die before they are born.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There's a interweb meme just now, conflating guns and abortion. I think it's worthy.
I think it's one of the dumbest fucking things I've ever heard.

Every single abortion ends in death. About a million of 'em a year.
That makes sense to only someone who believes people can die before they are born.
So it only makes sense to a shitload of people then...like 38 states and the federal government...

Okay, wow...good point Einstein.
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
If, by some chance, you mean stillbirth, the rate is 26,00 a year in the US, the vast bulk of them due to natural causes, Mr. Science Guy.

[ 04. December 2015, 01:50: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
So is it too much to ask that people identify correctly the ones they want to whale on?
Nope. Perfectly reasonable.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I live in metro Los Angeles, almost certainly the road rage capital of the world. The term was first used in a news cast here, after a spate of local highway shootings.
Doesn't answer my question. At this point anyone who believes the media about basically anything is an idiot.

I want stats on road rage shooting incidents.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Well, I have come to treat driving as a war zone. I try not to do anything (no matter how much I may be in the right) that might irritate another driver for fear the respone may be a road rage shooting. Fucking omnipresent guns again.
Whereas if nobody had guns, you'd be perfectly happy to self-righteously irritate people?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Well, I have come to treat driving as a war zone. I try not to do anything (no matter how much I may be in the right) that might irritate another driver for fear the respone may be a road rage shooting. Fucking omnipresent guns again.
Whereas if nobody had guns, you'd be perfectly happy to self-righteously irritate people?
I think it's kind of like when you get hit as a pedestrian in a crosswalk, you get up and hobble-run as best as you can in case the driver wants to finish you off. Apologizing for being in the way as you dodge the shrapnel.

I saw some insane rebroadcast advertisements this evening on our late news. The USA government has crack-powered public service ads as useful as the old "run, duck and cover" nuclear war ads. These ones go with "run, hide and fight". And suggest abandoning the wounded.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I saw some insane rebroadcast advertisements this evening on our late news. The USA government has crack-powered public service ads as useful as the old "run, duck and cover" nuclear war ads. These ones go with "run, hide and fight". And suggest abandoning the wounded.
And a link to evidence of these claims?
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
L C,

By definition obeying traffic laws is not self-righteous. By "in the right" I meant obeying the law.

For example, I make every effort drive at or below the speed limit*. That irritates some people. When they honk, tailgarte, give me the finger, etc., I do my best to get out of their self-centered, unlawful way.

The idea that they may to start shooting does enter my mind. Maybe that's just me.

Have you driven in Los Angeles?

*My policy of obedience to the law may at least partilly explain why I've had no tickets or accidents in 58 years of driving - 30 of them in LA (Yes, I'm fuckin' ancient, but I don't putt along at 10mph when I drive.).

[ 04. December 2015, 03:16: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I saw some insane rebroadcast advertisements this evening on our late news. The USA government has crack-powered public service ads as useful as the old "run, duck and cover" nuclear war ads. These ones go with "run, hide and fight". And suggest abandoning the wounded.
And a link to evidence of these claims?
Shhhh, don't ask for evidence. It's not needed. Don't you understand? There exist people who are not Canadian. Poor dears. However do they manage, the benighted souls?
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I live in metro Los Angeles, almost certainly the road rage capital of the world. The term was first used in a news cast here, after a spate of local highway shootings.
Doesn't answer my question. At this point anyone who believes the media about basically anything is an idiot.

I want stats on road rage shooting incidents.
So far, I've uncovered this:

In California, it's legally called "aggressive driving", and 37% of the cases involve a firearm.
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
Enough fuckin' research for me!

8% involve weapons other than guns, including tire irons, ice picks, even cross bows.

23% use their car as a weapon.

Shit fire!
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:

For example, I make every effort drive at or below the speed limit*. That irritates some people. When they honk, tailgarte, give me the finger, etc., I do my best to get out of their self-centered, unlawful way.
And do you only do that because you're afraid that they might have a gun and shoot you? Your post implied that, if you knew that they weren't armed, you'd be quite happy to irritate them and impede their desired progress, because you'd be in the right.

I merely suggest that you should endeavour not to irritate people unnecessarily whether or not you're afraid they might shoot you.

(Yes, I've driven in LA, but not terribly often. I can't say that it seemed that much worse than other big cities - maybe I got lucky.)

[ 04. December 2015, 04:11: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
If, by some chance, you mean stillbirth, the rate is 26,00 a year in the US, the vast bulk of them due to natural causes, Mr. Science Guy.
26,00 is not a number in the United States. Do you, by some chance, mean 26,000?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There's a interweb meme just now, conflating guns and abortion. I think it's worthy.
That's absurd. Pro-life people are against abortion but for gun deaths as the price we must pay to have the freedom we need.

Freedom from being gunned down is not a thing.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
Just get rid of the bloody guns
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
L C,
I hold obedience to traffic laws (yep, all of them) in high regard.

If the only consequence of this view were simple irritation on the part of some drivers, compliance with the laws would trump the irritation. Sorry, but that's me.

This may very well be an extreme view. It is, however, one I willingly compromise when the irritation seems to show signs of rage.

The possibility of violence and the use of guns*, in expressing this rage, definitely enters my mind in these situations. Again, that may be because I'm a nutter.

*I now realize that I'd rather face a gun than be beaten to death by a tire iron, fatally stabbed by an ice pick, or perish in a hail of arrows a la St. Sebastian. Guns, however, are the road ragers' weapon of choice and they too are not to be argued with.

[ 04. December 2015, 05:12: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
If, by some chance, you mean stillbirth, the rate is 26,00 a year in the US, the vast bulk of them due to natural causes, Mr. Science Guy.
26,00 is not a number in the United States. Do you, by some chance, mean 26,000?
Yes, mousethief. It's 26,000 - one of a myriad of examples of my impatient refusal to proofread, let alone preview post.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
SS--

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Passer, L'Organist, and others, can we stop talking about "any nation" and other terms that lump all Americans in one boat? I bloody well don't have to accept this situation when I'm opposed to the set-up that makes it easier.
How loud are those who are in favour of gun control shouting? I don't hear them.
Like those in Britain arguing against Osborne's fake austerity policies. Plenty of noise on social media, bugger all on mass media (TV, radio and the press) because, over here too, money talks.

Remember the Golden Rule: Them 'as got the gold, makes the rules.
SS, thank you for that. [Smile]

And for readers in general,
back to page 7--this, and other things on that page from various Americans.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Shhhh, don't ask for evidence. It's not needed. Don't you understand? There exist people who are not Canadian. Poor dears. However do they manage, the benighted souls?
{Whispers "by putting maple syrup on our pancakes, but it's often from Vermont; maybe that's where we went 'wrong'?" [Biased] }
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
Another fuck up.

According to legend, St. Sebastian recovered from the wounds inflicted by the arrows but was later clubbed to death. I suppose there are people who drive around with a club at the ready.

Has anyone here ever seen a painting of St. Sebastian being bashed by clubs?

[ 04. December 2015, 05:34: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
lvr--

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
There are plenty of Americans saying they want tighter gun control.

They get drowned out by the NRA because money talks. And the NRA has lots of it.
Yup. Thanks for getting this. [Smile]
 
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
It's not just that the NRA has a lot of money. They also know how to organize their members and run highly effective political campaigns.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Maybe he lost to a hand of clubs at poker?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Pro-life people are against abortion but for gun deaths as the price we must pay to have the freedom we need.

Freedom from being gunned down is not a thing.
"price we must pay to have the freedom we need"

You need to be packing a pistol to give you freedom?

And yes, it is a thing. If I can't go down the street for fear, I am not free.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Pro-life people are against abortion but for gun deaths as the price we must pay to have the freedom we need.

Freedom from being gunned down is not a thing.
"price we must pay to have the freedom we need"

You need to be packing a pistol to give you freedom?

And yes, it is a thing. If I can't go down the street for fear, I am not free.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
It could be argued that driving around at or under the speed limit when everyone around you is going 10 over is passive-aggressive driving.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
There will always be people on the roads driving a little bit slower than the speed limit. They may be new drivers, they may be carrying a heavy load, they may be looking for a particular side road. A driver incapable of driving in the presence of someone driving slower than them should not be allowed on the road.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There will always be people on the roads driving a little bit slower than the speed limit. They may be new drivers, they may be carrying a heavy load, they may be looking for a particular side road. A driver incapable of driving in the presence of someone driving slower than them should not be allowed on the road.
When you're on a multi-lane freeway, people driving significantly over or significantly under the rate of flow of the rest of traffic are a hazard. It means other people have to break the flow to cope with them. Which is dangerous. Yes, people can do it. But it requires maneuvering, braking, lane-changing, etc., that would not be required if everyone were going to same speed. And each of those actions has potential danger involved.

It's beautiful and lovely to think everyone should just do the speed limit, or that if I'm blocking traffic, that's your problem not mine. But it's not reality. Everyone going the same speed is by far the safest way to use the freeway for everyone. Self-righteous slow-goers endanger other people. Which is why I use the term self-righteous. Their moral rectitude is more important to them than other people's safety or convenience. They're willing to put other people at unnecessary danger so that THEY can feel righteous.
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
To clarify, I usually drive at or just below the speed limit. We have traffic laws for good reasons. I don't think it's unreasonable to obey those laws. I don't go out there to anger people.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
At least drivers are licensed, and tested every now and then. When you become too fuddled or near-sighted to be safe behind the wheel, one may hope that the motor vehicle people will take away your license before you kill somebody.

I do not think this is an unreasonable requirement to lay upon gun owners. A gun is at least as dangerous as a car (you cannot kill 14 people with a car unless you select a laden school bus as your target) and many of our problems revolve around people who clearly never should have been allowed to own them in the first place. Surely we can agree that mental patients and people on the terrorist list should not be able to pick up armaments like candy. But the NRA will not allow even this.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
To clarify, I usually drive at or just below the speed limit. We have traffic laws for good reasons. I don't think it's unreasonable to obey those laws. I don't go out there to anger people.
It's unreasonable to make obeying laws more important than driving safely, yes. The laws are there to promote safety but slavish adherence to the laws is sometimes contraindicated, exactly for reasons of safety. As noted above. You're not intending to anger people, but you are, for your self-righteous reasons. You're being a prick.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Feel free to argue you should speed because it's safer. Apart from the very rare exceptional circumstances (the oil tanker behind you is jack knifing being one of the few), you will always be wrong.

[ 04. December 2015, 13:43: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
mousethief:
quote:
It's beautiful and lovely to think everyone should just do the speed limit, or that if I'm blocking traffic, that's your problem not mine. But it's not reality. Everyone going the same speed is by far the safest way to use the freeway for everyone. Self-righteous slow-goers endanger other people. Which is why I use the term self-righteous. Their moral rectitude is more important to them than other people's safety or convenience. They're willing to put other people at unnecessary danger so that THEY can feel righteous.
On the other hand:

It's beautiful and lovely to think everyone should just ignore the speed limit, or that if I'm tailgating you, that's your problem not mine. But it's not reality. Everyone adjusting their speed to take account of driving conditions is by far the safest way to use the roads for all road users. Selfish speeders endanger other people. Which is why I use the term selfish. Their time is more important to them than other people's safety or convenience. They're willing to put other people at unnecessary risk because a few minutes of THEIR time is more important than someone else's life.

I take your point about it being safer if everyone is driving at approximately the same speed. But one of the reasons for that is that most people do not allow enough distance between themselves and the car in front when driving at speed. And just because it's *legal* to drive at 70 mph on British motorways, it doesn't mean it's always safe to do so. The newspapers and Internet are littered with examples of fatal crashes caused by drivers not bothering to slow down in bad weather conditions. In Britain, where it is legal to drive at 60mph on winding country roads which are also used by cyclists, tractors, horse-riders and (often) pedestrians, it is often not safe to drive that fast. And yet you still get lunatics trying to overtake you on blind corners.

Oh, and when I was on holiday in America I was probably one of those slow drivers you are so annoyed about, because I thought I was supposed to take your 55 mph freeway speed limit seriously. I thought it was ridiculously low too, but if you don't like the law, campaign to have it changed.
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
Absolutely right.

On multi-lane freeways, those who do not hold themselves above traffic laws, should stay in the extreme right ("slow lane"). I do.

The danger comes when self-centered law breakers weave in an out of lanes to gain a few precious seconds and come roaring up behind those of us who try to obey the law.

A good share of the traffic laws, speed limits being among the most important, are there to save lives.

Is it also self-righteous not to drink and drive? Self-righteous not to tailgate? Self-righteous not to fully stop at a stop sign? Self-righteous not to signal turns? Self-righteous to pull over when an active emergency vehicle is approaching? Then I'm self-righteous and not about to change.

I think it's twisted and fuckin' dangerous (imho) to claim that those who obey the law are the menace.
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
edit:

"...Self-righteous not to tailgate? Self-righteous [not-delete]to fully stop at a stop sign? Self-righteous [not - delete] to signal turns?..."
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
When you're on a multi-lane freeway, people driving significantly over or significantly under the rate of flow of the rest of traffic are a hazard. It means other people have to break the flow to cope with them. Which is dangerous. Yes, people can do it. But it requires maneuvering, braking, lane-changing, etc., that would not be required if everyone were going to same speed.
Slowly but surely all UK motorways are becoming 'smart' motorways. Which means there are cameras all along, they clock your average speed - and if you don't keep to the speed displayed (which varies with the conditions) you are sent a fixed penalty notice + points on your licence. I love these motorways - no tailgating, very little overtaking, smooth driving - great!
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
When you're on a multi-lane freeway, people driving significantly over or significantly under the rate of flow of the rest of traffic are a hazard. It means other people have to break the flow to cope with them. Which is dangerous. Yes, people can do it. But it requires maneuvering, braking, lane-changing, etc., that would not be required if everyone were going to same speed. And each of those actions has potential danger involved.

It's beautiful and lovely to think everyone should just do the speed limit, or that if I'm blocking traffic, that's your problem not mine. But it's not reality. Everyone going the same speed is by far the safest way to use the freeway for everyone. Self-righteous slow-goers endanger other people. Which is why I use the term self-righteous. Their moral rectitude is more important to them than other people's safety or convenience. They're willing to put other people at unnecessary danger so that THEY can feel righteous.
Of the your three options, it only requires a little braking, wild maneuvering to go around them so you can stay at your preferred high speed is your (bad) decision and if there is an accident, it's your sudden lane change that caused it not the driver who is going the speed limit.

Your last paragraph is just wrong by any highway safety statistics. They tell us over and over -- speed kills.

[ 04. December 2015, 14:48: Message edited by: Twilight ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Here is a truly grand solution that combines two entirely separate causes of flame war! I love it, but would stipulate that gun purchasers must have an ultrasound and digital exam by a professional medical person.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Here is a <....>
See up thread.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:

I think it's twisted and fuckin' dangerous (imho) to claim that those who obey the law are the menace.
It is rare that in any interaction between two people, one person is "in the right" and the other is "in the wrong".

The case of someone driving like an idiot weaving in and out of traffic comes pretty close to the rare extreme. Most cases aren't that.

Most cases are someone sitting in the middle lane doing the speed limit, choosing to remain in the middle lane because there's a truck on the horizon doing 5mph less than the speed limit that they want to pass, and they don't like changing lanes. This person forms a bottleneck that impedes the progress of the traffic that wants to drive at 10mph over the speed limit.

Is this person in the wrong? Yes. They should move promptly into the "slow" lane, and only move out to overtake someone. Are the 10mph over the limit crew in the wrong? Yes - they're speeding.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Slowly but surely all UK motorways are becoming 'smart' motorways. Which means there are cameras all along, they clock your average speed - and if you don't keep to the speed displayed (which varies with the conditions) you are sent a fixed penalty notice + points on your licence. I love these motorways - no tailgating, very little overtaking, smooth driving - great!
We had a driver take us from Southampton to London last year and he told us about that and it was a smooth trip. On multi-lane highways there, which is the fast/passing lane? It seems it would be the right lane since you drive on the left. Ours is the left lane but we drive on the right. So, how is it?
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

The usual suspects, including me, will post on this thread and make same fucking arguments again.
Anyone want to do the latest gun atrocity in the US, or shall we ignore it and stick with motoring?

Interesting, were it not tragic, that this mighty Superpower has a gun problem of such magnitude it's now hardly possible to discern between a domestic shooting and a terrorist one.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Most cases are someone sitting in the middle lane doing the speed limit, choosing to remain in the middle lane because there's a truck on the horizon doing 5mph less than the speed limit that they want to pass, and they don't like changing lanes. This person forms a bottleneck that impedes the progress of the traffic that wants to drive at 10mph over the speed limit.

Is this person in the wrong? Yes. They should move promptly into the "slow" lane, and only move out to overtake someone. Are the 10mph over the limit crew in the wrong? Yes - they're speeding.
Yes they're both wrong but the person going the speed limit is likely to cause a bottleneck, while the person going ten miles over is more likely to cause a death.

My orthopedic surgeon has a big peg board in his waiting room covered with photographs of his patients, aged four through eighty. All have missing limbs and the title at the top of the board tells us that every one of these amputations was the result of someone speeding in an automobile.

[ 04. December 2015, 19:02: Message edited by: Twilight ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Yes they're both wrong but the person going the speed limit is likely to cause a bottleneck, while the person going ten miles over is more likely to cause a death.
My point is that playing "who is more wrong" dicksize games is the wrong approach. Are you driving slower than the person behind? Put yourself in the "slow lane" and allow him to pass safely. Are you driving faster than the person in front? Pass safely, leaving adequate space between you and the other cars.

It doesn't matter how fast you're both going with respect to the posted speed limit - you should behave like this anyway. And if the other guy is driving like an idiot, do exactly the same thing (but allow even more space if possible - idiots tend to use it up.)
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
quote:
On multi-lane highways there, which is the fast/passing lane? It seems it would be the right lane since you drive on the left. Ours is the left lane but we drive on the right. So, how is it?
One is obliged to drive in the LH lane, unless you want to overtake in which case you move one over to the right, and if your way is again blocked by more traffic moving slower than you, you move one further over to the right. Heavy Goods (limited to 56mph) may only use LH and centre lanes. One must move leftwards again at the earliest safe opportunity, regardless of speed.

Well, that was 1960s sparse traffic. Today it works well in the dead of night, but when traffic is heavy everyone pretty much sticks at one speed in one lane, with occasional overtaking.

One important thing is that only very rarely does a suicidal dickhead overtake you on the inside (here, LH side). It's not meant to happen, very rarely does happen, and you can move left in safety without worrying about what is behind you.

I didn't know that overtaking on both sides was OK when I drove in LA (ummm...20 years ago!) - so when someone came up behind me I generally tried to lane-change to the right to let them through - and often found myself still in their path!

Oh - and while we're on the subject of road manners in other countries - flashing lights in the UK means 'I see you, please do come out in front of me' or 'thanks' or very occasionally 'shit, your roof rack is about to fall off' - I infer in France (after having flashed a lot...) it means 'get out of my way'!
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
A US friend told me that she needed a gun to defend herself from everyone else with guns. Trouble is, everyone seems to believe this and therefore nobody will make the first move. It seems to be a roller coaster of inaction which makes me think the guns situation for America will only get worse. If good people do nothing then the criminals win every time.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Here is a truly grand solution that combines two entirely separate causes of flame war! I love it, but would stipulate that gun purchasers must have an ultrasound and digital exam by a professional medical person.
[Killing me] [Overused]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
A US friend told me that she needed a gun to defend herself from everyone else with guns. Trouble is, everyone seems to believe this and therefore nobody will make the first move. It seems to be a roller coaster of inaction which makes me think the guns situation for America will only get worse. If good people do nothing then the criminals win every time.
Add to that the people who go off on gun sprees tend to target. people who have noting to do with carrying a gun. Add to that the people who decide to opt out of the gun races will be annihilated in the crossfire of the cultural war --literal, armed war--that is ever looming closer in the US.

But luckily that will leave a nation comprised of stereotypes to hate.

[ 05. December 2015, 03:54: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Here is a truly grand solution that combines two entirely separate causes of flame war! I love it, but would stipulate that gun purchasers must have an ultrasound and digital exam by a professional medical person.
[Killing me] [Overused]
OK, I thought I knew what this was referencing, but this goes a whole new level. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
A US friend told me that she needed a gun to defend herself from everyone else with guns. Trouble is, everyone seems to believe this and therefore nobody will make the first move. It seems to be a roller coaster of inaction which makes me think the guns situation for America will only get worse. If good people do nothing then the criminals win every time.
Add to that the people who go off on gun sprees tend to target. people who have noting to do with carrying a gun. Add to that the people who decide to opt out of the gun races will be annihilated in the crossfire of the cultural war --literal, armed war--that is ever looming closer in the US.

But luckily that will leave a nation comprised of stereotypes to hate.
Add to those:

--the private militias, hate groups, end times-obsessed to the point of *wanting* it all groups, etc. that are just waiting for a chance at real war;

--armed cults (Branch Davidians, Elizabeth Clare Prophet, Jonestown, Synanon);

--anyone who could make a buck off of the whole thing;

--people who would've voluntarily gone off to the Crusades, if they'd lived then;

--folks a little/lot lost, wanting some direction and focus, wanting to count for something...maybe like some of the radical Islamists;

--folks who want to go out in a blaze of glory, send someone else out in a blaze of infamy, or both...maybe like some of the radical Islamists;

--folks with anger and fear and worry, and no place to put them;

--folks who are tired of being used, abused, and stomped on;

--and lots of folks who are just plain scared, and tired of it, etc.,

and you won't need the Middle East for Armageddon. [Frown] Probably lots of small wars and battles, all over the country. Supplies run short because of them. Add in little health care, and an epidemic or three.

And the US is pretty much gone.

No joke.

If really, really lucky, we might wind up with something like "The Postman" or "The Fifth Sacred Thing". If so, to quote the last line of the "X-Files" series, "maybe there's hope".
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
My point wasn't so much to list everyone who had enough of a beef to pick up a gun For the most part it was to acknowledge and concur with bib's thoroughly depressing assessment of the whole frustrating, head-banging mess. Yes, it takes someone to have the guts to be the first to put down the gun, but along with that, that person has to assume they will probably be rewarded by being shot.

A more subtle point was made, but we've gone over that one enough.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Kelly--

Yes, I got that. [Smile] If the subtle point was the line about stereotypes, got that, too.

AIUI, bib's point was partly about the US gun situation getting worse, if something isn't done. And you mentioned the brewing, cultural, armed war here. That's something I've been quietly concerned about for a long time.

As for bib's comment about good people doing nothing: actually, it's not true, as Americans have pointed out throughout the thread. Sometimes, gun control laws even get passed--only to be overturned, or allowed to run out.

Not long before the San Bernardino shooting, doctors gave Congress a petition to allow the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to study gun violence.

quote:
Since 1996, Congress has barred the CDC from using federal funding to "advocate or promote gun control." That language, which emerged out of pressure from the National Rifle Association (NRA), effectively halted CDC's efforts to study gun violence because of concerns that it would risk losing even more funding.

Experts who study gun violence say without CDC research, many questions about gun violence remain unanswered.
People really are trying to change things. But there's a huge amount of resistance from Congress, and from the funders in whose pockets they comfortably nest. Obama's spoken out, repeatedly, but there are limits to what he can do on his own.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Thank GAAAAARRRD! It wuz tourism! Nuthin' ter do the second commandment and divine right to keep and bear arms.

Ten thousand years.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The latest twist to this tragic narrative is terrifying in its implications.

I guess you have to face the fact, whether pro or anti gun control, that the second amendment as currently administered makes it very easy for terror cells, rogue groups self-identifying with Daesh, or angry lone-wolf nuts, to make their own kind of war on their neighbours. The Daesh do not even have to recruit. The angry, alienated and psychopathic will recruit themselves.

I don't see how you get out of it. One of the traumatised survivors of the San Bernadino massacre, barely holding it together, said when being interviewed that he "wished he'd had a gun on him, he might have been able to save some lives". Who can't understand that? I'm sure the NRA will use it.

I think it's very likely now that you'll see an increase in local, armed, vigilante groups, wanting to check for themselves whether their ethnic neighbours with "clean skins" really are "clean".

"We need to see inside your garage, friend. And your basement. Open up. NOW."

The end game is in danger of becoming a an even more lethal re-run of the Wild West. The good guys wear white hats, the bad guys black hats or feathers, you can tell which is which by just looking at them, you shoot first and ask questions afterwards, and there's cigareets and whisky and wild wild women for comfort. Plus you can now watch progress nightly on, and get your encouragement from, Fox News.

In this version of "West World" it won't be robots turning homicidal.

[ 05. December 2015, 07:59: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Barnabas-- again, nailed it.


Hey, how about something that finally resembles some motherfucking action?

And how about you follow suit, SF Chronicle?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Kelly--

Well, SFGate.com, one of the SF Chronicle's sites, has a truly awesome blog post by Mark Morford: "Can anything stop America’s savage gun epidemic?" Anyone--American or not--who's sickened by and frustrated with the situation is apt to like it.

---

San Francisco has come up many times in this thread. KQED public radio hosts our wonderful "Forum" call-in show. The day after the San Bernardino shooting, host Michael Krasny had several relevant guests on. I only heard part of the show, but what I heard was good. You'll get a dose of what San Franciscans and Northern Californians are thinking. Plus people across the country and around the world participate, too. You can listen to the show here. (No transcript, unfortunately.)
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:
People really are trying to change things. But there's a huge amount of resistance from Congress, and from the funders in whose pockets they comfortably nest. Obama's spoken out, repeatedly, but there are limits to what he can do on his own.
American voters need to tell their representatives "No gun legislation from you, no vote for you. Vote against gun legislation, get voted against".
Not enough are doing so.
Kinda sad that net neutrality was saved this way, but lives won't be.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
A US friend told me that she needed a gun to defend herself from everyone else with guns.
I just wonder how many cases there's been of random shooters having had their killing sprees cut short because of a sharp-shooting good deeder pulling a pistol and blowing them out.

None is my guess, happy to be corrected though.

Obama has tried some common sense rhetoric, all credit to him for that. Unfortunately the slightest murmur of gun control only seems to lead Americans towards stashing even more guns and ammo. Add that to the clout of the gun lobby and I doubt if the next President will even bother to 'go there'.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It ain't the second AMENDMENT, Buddy, it's the second COMMANDMENT.

10,000 years.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
GK-- commandeering the front page has a whole different impact than a page 10 editorial, or a blog on the sidebar. IMO. It moves things out of the realm of opinion and into the realm of national emergency. Which it is.

Lilb-- as I said, don't worry, your " not enough" will be punished for their inefficacy soon enough. I'm sure being right will feel good when that happens.

I am glad GK linked to the illustrious page seven of the last go- round, because it lead me to read two posts that were completely ignored by the "don't you know this effects us, too?" crowd and those were," what can we, shipmates, together do?"and " what if the UK hit the US in the pocketbook by formally boycotting American media that glorifies gun culture?"

actually, Gama touched on it a bit, but everyone else seemed content to despise an Ok Corral culture while preserving their right to enjoy their "Breaking Bad" and "yippie -ky-yay motherfucker."

On the one hand it was a comment on how it's not just "Murricans that feed into gun culture, on the other, re-reading it gets me thinking: despite the silly dox wars, keyboard feminists have actually made slowly encroaching strides in gaining the ear of directors, comic book artists, tv producers, etc as to the portrayal of women in media and to women's involvement in same. An anchor cannot tell a politician how cute her shoes are without the world landing on them, nowadays.

What if we could get behind a similar cultural attack-- what if we called out the culture of violence the way we call out sexism? What if we said " we are tired of the serious matter of human death being accompanied by a snappy punchline, we are tired of domination and conquering being celebrated over community and cooperation, we are tired of being told over and over again that the ultimate expression of power and accomplishment is the perogative to kill without reprocession"?

I know the idea of a "violent media" assault is bound to get shot full of holes but seriously--we can keep up this stupid us and them thing-- where some of us polish our brass about how civilised and righteous their culture is compared to that of the people who are getting picked off in front of their eyes-- or WE can put our going on 15 year collection of heads together and fucking do something. We are (unpaid) contributors to the message board of a MAGAZINE for Christ's sake ( name used intentionally.) Surely together we can figure out somehing more productive to do than finger wagging, arm folding and sighing.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I just wonder how many cases there's been of random shooters having had their killing sprees cut short because of a sharp-shooting good deeder pulling a pistol and blowing them out.

None is my guess, happy to be corrected though.

Guns are used to protect lives and property all the time, and not just in the US.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I just wonder how many cases there's been of random shooters having had their killing sprees cut short because of a sharp-shooting good deeder pulling a pistol and blowing them out.

None is my guess, happy to be corrected though.

Guns are used to protect lives and property all the time, and not just in the US.
I wonder if cost-benefit analyses have been done, looking at how effective gun ownership and use really are in protecting lives and property.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Congress has forbidden government agencies from doing research into what kind of legislation would actually help lower gun violence. Under intense pressure from the NRA, of course. Read how that happened.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Guns are used to protect lives and property all the time, and not just in the US.
But far more lives are lost to gun violence in the US than are protected.

But you are of course free to go right along in supporting the outrageous numbers of murders and suicides facilitated by the ready access to firearms in this country. You're stupid and you're contributing to evil, but hey, it's a free country.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Guns are used to protect lives and property all the time, and not just in the US.
Citations? You position has limited or no support.

Here's better info than your silly opinion: The Self-Defense Self-Delusion: Owning guns doesn't actually help stop gun violence

quote:
...only professionals who drill continuously in live shooter situations can hope to succeed in such chaotic situations.
The truth about guns and self-defense

quote:
Do armed civilians ever foil mass shootings? Yes, but not regularly. An FBI study of 160 active-shooter events between 2000 and 2013 found seven incidents in which an armed civilian shot the gunman and ended the rampage.

 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Congress has forbidden government agencies from doing research into what kind of legislation would actually help lower gun violence. Under intense pressure from the NRA, of course. Read how that happened.
Oh well, I'll have to win the lottery and fund a couple of PhD students and a good data analyst to do the research. I'm sure it could be done for Ł100,000.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
That occured to me-- is it possible to have the gun control analysis privately funded?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

Lilb-- as I said, don't worry, your " not enough" will be punished for their inefficacy soon enough. I'm sure being right will feel good when that happens.
Not sure how to process this. It isn't about winning. I am stating what should be obvious, but apparently isn't, not finger wagging. I have said the same thing more broadly about everyone's political responsibilities.
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

what if the UK hit the US in the pocketbook by formally boycotting American media that glorifies gun culture?
UK, and other countries, would have to admit they too glorify such. Bond isn't merely an export, nor is Guy Ritchie. Media feeds the problem, but the roots are deep.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Guns are used to protect lives and property all the time, and not just in the US.
Citations? You position has limited or no support.
....
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Pfft. Bad admins. No biscuit.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
i guess what is bothering me is that in the discussion of the American perps and sustainers of the problem, there should be some sort of reference to the fact that the victims of each of these tragedies are in fact American.

Do you not see how we might be getting scared? Wondering if we are next? How we might see the victims of each of these tragedies as more representative of actual Americans than the perps? And exactly the version of America that gun culture is trying to kill?

as for Bond (and Guy Ritchie, and Jason Stratham) --- yeah. There's this primal addiction that Western culture seems to have that defines a person's significance by how much control they have over other people, and the ultimate expressions of that are rape and murder. The unique problem of the US is having this cockamamie combination of second amendment phraseology and pioneer expansion land grab/ stake techniques that we are only now beginning to really define-- forget untangling, for the moment.That mess we have just fertilizes the already wrongheaded, evil definition of power Western Civilization has been infected with.

[ 05. December 2015, 19:03: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I just got a gigantic box of biscuits from a parent, Doc Tor, so I'm afraid the Cosmos does not agree with you.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
And lilb-- sorry if I singled you out in my rant, but you have that handicap of being someone who seems to actually tries to listen-- orfeo, too, which is why it's tempting to get in your specific faces.
 
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Guns are used to protect lives and property all the time, and not just in the US.
Citations? You position has limited or no support.
....
So 10 examples. Against how many hundreds of incidents? And that's before we comment on the relationship between these anecdotes and evidence. Or the fact that the article acknowledges how more than one of them was when the person intervening was trained to use a gun in live fire combat.

I'm not sure it makes a great case.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
i guess what is bothering me is that in the discussion of the American perps and sustainers of the problem, there should be some sort of reference to the fact that the victims of each of these tragedies are in fact American.

Do you not see how we might be getting scared? Wondering if we are next? How we might see the victims of each of these tragedies as more representative of actual Americans than the perps? And exactly the version of America that gun culture is trying to kill?
I think this is actually what boggles minds in other countries. That this is happening to Americans as well as by them and yet...
However, this is how we humans work. Us and them is situational.

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And lilb-- sorry if I singled you out in my rant, but you have that handicap of being someone who seems to actually tries to listen-- orfeo, too, which is why it's tempting to get in your specific faces.
No worries. And I can seem preachy. But it is never meant from a "holier than thou" perspective. Rather the opposite.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Aaannnnndddd "One Day After Mass Shooting, Republicans Vote Down Gun Legislation". (Care2) (If anyone already posted about this, apologies.)

Care2 is a site for ways to do good, so there are links to more info, and a petition for *Americans* to sign.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
On the same day that the Republicans voted down gun control, a Nevada Democratic politician took a stand: "Meet the Gun-Loving Lifelong Member of the NRA Who Just Submitted His Resignation".
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Holy hell.

[Mad] [Waterworks] [Help]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
State Dept. must list NRA as terrorist organization, New York Daily News. Interesting.

The NRA's New Shooting Game Is For Ages Four And Up
Looks like fun. Ages 4 and up.

quote:
You can use handguns and shotguns. You can also buy an AK47 assault rifle for just $0.99, which is a very good deal for an AK47 assault rifle. Other weapons, like an MK11 sniper rifle, also cost $0.99 each.
I guess 4 year olds are ready for guns. Didn't know that. [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Ok, we can't link to petitions, except in our signatures. But I will say that the petitions section of the White House site has a firearms section. The site also has Obama's positions on guns, and lots of other stuff. Some fun things, too! [Smile]

(H/As, hope this is ok.)
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

The NRA's New Shooting Game Is For Ages Four And Up
Looks like fun. Ages 4 and up.
The NRA's "new" shooting game is three years old.

In more recent news, Wednesday's attack in California is the latest example of Islamic assholes killing Americans inside the US during Obama's term.

Guns this time, but they have also used bombs and chopped people's heads off.

Don't worry though, the AG is serious about prosecuting people who might have something negative to say about it...
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Think of all who were killed here during Dubya's term. AKA 9/11.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Think of all who were killed here during Dubya's term. AKA 9/11.
Yeah! All those guys who came into the states during Clinton's term!? I remember that...what a mess!
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Guns this time, but they have also used bombs and chopped people's heads off.
When have Islamists (or anybody for that matter) decapitated Americans on American soil since 2008?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Guns this time, but they have also used bombs and chopped people's heads off.
When have Islamists (or anybody for that matter) decapitated Americans on American soil since 2008?
In 2014 in Oklahoma.

Ironically, he was stopped by a company executive with a gun.

I'm not surprised that you had not heard about it, being "workplace violence" and all.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
In more recent news, Wednesday's attack in California is the latest example of Islamic assholes killing Americans inside the US during Obama's term.
What was the one before this one?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Oh well, I'll have to win the lottery and fund a couple of PhD students and a good data analyst to do the research. I'm sure it could be done for Ł100,000.
Depends - do you want to know the answer, or do you want to be able to persuade other people (including skeptical people) that you have the answer. Ł100,000 might buy you the first, but it won't buy the second.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
One of the traumatised survivors of the San Bernadino massacre, barely holding it together, said when being interviewed that he "wished he'd had a gun on him, he might have been able to save some lives". Who can't understand that?
If I am ever in a situation when I am attacked by one or more gunmen (terrorists, crazies or otherwise), I would certainly benefit from having a gun, and having some friends with guns with me.

It's not very likely to happen, though, and for me, the unlikely possibility that I might be attacked by terrorists does not outweigh the daily inconvenience that carrying a gun around with me would be.

The kids like to climb me like I'm a jungle gym. I couldn't let them do that if I was wearing a gun. Or maybe I'm walking around town, and I just need to pop into the... oh wait - that building doesn't allow guns.

I don't carry an umbrella everywhere I go, either, because the odds of a win (having an umbrella when I get caught in the rain) don't outweigh the inconvenience of carrying the thing around when it's dry. To me, carrying a gun looks like even worse odds.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
Is this where I should "drop the microphone"?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
In more recent news, Wednesday's attack in California is the latest example of Islamic assholes killing Americans inside the US during Obama's term.
What was the one before this one?
The Boston Bombings?

Nadal Hasan?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
In more recent news, Wednesday's attack in California is the latest example of Islamic assholes killing Americans inside the US during Obama's term.
What was the one before this one?
The Boston Bombings?

Nadal Hasan?
Chattanooga?

Garland, Texas?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The whole thing with guns in America is scary and sad for this outsider looking in. I get the historical frontier use to exterminate the Indian nations and tribes, but can't see how that applies to current urban killings. Someone must be finding this economically advantageous, making a profit out of it.

The references to the terror attacks - how do they apply? I can't see that shooting your openly carried pistol at an airplane would do much on the way to crashing into a building.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:


The references to the terror attacks - how do they apply? I can't see that shooting your openly carried pistol at an airplane would do much on the way to crashing into a building.
You must be referring to 9/11? Those attacks were nearly 15 years ago. Islamist shitbags have been killing people in the US with regularity since then.

Had you been in that room in San Bernardino last week, would you have rather been carrying or not carrying?

How effective were the strict gun control laws in France in preventing what happened there?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The whole thing with guns in America is scary and sad for this outsider looking in. I get the historical frontier use to exterminate the Indian nations and tribes, but can't see how that applies to current urban killings.
Only that the pioneer movement made the continental US such a war zone that every homesteader really had reason for wanting a gun on their property-- and people haven't shaken that idea that a gun is the basic form of home protection. Pretty sure it's been pointed out before. It's not a justification for anything, it's an attempt to describe where the idea of home gun use came from. Because people keep asking.

quote:

Someone must be finding this economically advantageous, making a profit out of it.
No, really?

The network of people who are making a profit off of this are the very people cockblocking gun law reform. That must have been mentioned by four different people on the last two pages alone.Unlike Lilbuddha and Orfeo, you are not one of the people who seem to be trying to listen.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Is this where I should "drop the microphone"?
What fucking game are you under the impression you are winning?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Okay, so some of the many thousands of murders committed in this country since 9/11/01 have been committed by Muslims. Is the rate disproportionate to their percent of the population? Do you think they're all in cahoots, like all the white Christian angry young men who shoot up elementary schools and movie theatres? Is THEIR murder rate higher than their portion of the population?

Part of white privilege is when you do something, you represent yourself. When a black man or a Muslim commit a crime, they somehow represent all blacks or all Muslims.

[ 06. December 2015, 03:41: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

The references to the terror attacks - how do they apply? I can't see that shooting your openly carried pistol at an airplane would do much on the way to crashing into a building.
Obviously not, no. The idea that someone on the plane with a gun might be useful, however, is essentially the argument behind the existence of the Federal Air Marshal Service.

Most of the recent terror attacks have been mass shootings. One can certainly debate the likely outcome of having a number of well-trained, poorly-trained or untrained people carrying guns present at the Bataclan in Paris, in San Bernardino, or in other mass shootings, but the proposed mechanism is rather obvious. (Of course, there's nothing terrorism-specific about this discussion: it applies to mass shootings regardless of the killers' motives.)
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Islamist shitbags have been killing people in the US with regularity since then.
So, let's look at shootings and try to figure out what major religion the majority belong to. (Hint, it isn't Islam.)
And let's look at what might have triggered the largest rise in terrorist groups. (Hint, look at recent Republican presidents)
You have such a hard on for Clinton and Obama that you must be constantly stroking yourself to their images.
As far as arming people, look at the roadways next time you drive. Your want those people armed during a tense situation? You are an idiot.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Interestingly, the the New York Daily News did a San Bernardino front cover before the NY Times! (See the pics in the article.)
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Had you been in that room in San Bernardino last week, would you have rather been carrying or not carrying?
I'd rather nobody had been carrying. Including the attackers.

quote:
How effective were the strict gun control laws in France in preventing what happened there?
Which of the two countries has more mass shootings per year? I'd say that the one that has fewer such incidents is the one that has the laws that are most effective at preventing such incidents.

[ 06. December 2015, 12:14: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

I'd rather nobody had been carrying. Including the attackers.
Not an answer. They were carrying. So had you been there in that situation would you have preferred an opportunity to defend yourself or not?

quote:
Which of the two countries has more mass shootings per year? I'd say that the one that has fewer such incidents is the one that has the laws that are most effective at preventing such incidents.
Since there is no agreed upon definition of "mass shootings" it is difficult to say. In terms of casualties France has us beat hands down for 2015.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:


The references to the terror attacks - how do they apply? I can't see that shooting your openly carried pistol at an airplane would do much on the way to crashing into a building.
You must be referring to 9/11? Those attacks were nearly 15 years ago. Islamist shitbags have been killing people in the US with regularity since then.
Regularity, like frequency, does not men often or extensively. We'd like the numbers please.
quote:

Had you been in that room in San Bernardino last week, would you have rather been carrying or not carrying?
I'd rather not. I don't know how to use a gun and if I had one, somebody who does know how to use one would probably have shot me before taking my gun.
quote:


How effective were the strict gun control laws in France in preventing what happened there?
In that instance, ineffective, but that is one incident in many years and France has a vast number of young and disaffected Muslim men.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Oddly enough the UK understanding is even if attackers are carrying guns you are still safer if they think you are not.

Put it this way, if they think you have a gun and are going to use it against them then they will fire first and think later. Yes the exact reflection of the US gun lobbies stance. Odd that isn't it. Terrorist think like people.

Jengie
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

I'd rather nobody had been carrying. Including the attackers.
Not an answer. They were carrying. So had you been there in that situation would you have preferred an opportunity to defend yourself or not?
Unless I'm going to use the bullets from my gun to shoot the bullets from their gun, your use of the word 'defend' is simply buying into the frontiersman image and rhetoric the NRA and other gun-supporters frequently deploy.

You don't 'defend' yourself against an shooter with a gun. You kill the shooter. Kill. That's it. That's what you do. So, "had you been there in that situation would you have preferred an opportunity to defend yourself or not?" becomes "So had you been there in that situation would you have preferred an opportunity to kill the shooters or not?"

Let's not be coy about this. I'm reasonably certain that most sane people - at least, those without a delusionary level of self-confidence - would say "I'd have preferred an opportunity to escape from the shooters."
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Since there is no agreed upon definition of "mass shootings" it is difficult to say. In terms of casualties France has us beat hands down for 2015.
The agreed upon definition is four or more people shot. France hasn't even come close to the US: we're at 462 for the year. And that's deaths. Another 1312 have been injured.

[ 06. December 2015, 18:10: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
You can read about what life is like for one of those shot and injured, one of the "lucky ones."

Go ahead. Click here. Read. And then come back and explain why readily-available assault weapons are such a fabulous idea, you miserable excuse for an asswipe.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Oddly enough the UK understanding is even if attackers are carrying guns you are still safer if they think you are not.

Put it this way, if they think you have a gun and are going to use it against them then they will fire first and think later. Yes the exact reflection of the US gun lobbies stance. Odd that isn't it. Terrorist think like people.

Jengie
Yeah, this is the logic that eludes.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Oddly enough the UK understanding is even if attackers are carrying guns you are still safer if they think you are not.
That sounds entirely rational to me. Advertising that you are armed might act as a deterrence against certain kinds of attack (if you want to rob a bank, for example, you'll likely choose the poorly-defended one over the well-defended one).

Once someone has decided that he is going to attack you (rob your bank, shoot a bunch of people in your building, ...) it's rational for him to take out the guards first. If there's only a couple of guards, the guards are going down, because the attacker(s) will have the advantage of surprise.

That's why Air Marshals look like ordinary passengers instead of wearing shiny uniforms.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Let's not be coy about this. I'm reasonably certain that most sane people - at least, those without a delusionary level of self-confidence - would say "I'd have preferred an opportunity to escape from the shooters."
If anyone is at all able to perform heroics in a random shooter situation then a tactic might be, if you escaped getting hit early, to flee sideways and get behind the shooter. Providing a person is willing to risk their own life, a sudden lunge at the shooter and mounting them piggyback style while simultaneously pulling the weapon arm skywards could save lives.

Taking cover behind something that probably isn't bullet proof and attempting frontal, accurate shots in a chaotic few seconds is more likely to get you killed.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
The pro-gun people have said that we should do away with "gun free zones" because the bad guys know that they can come in and shoot people knowing that no one will shoot back -- unless it's at their own gun show, where loaded guns are not allowed -- and where someone was shot by accident.
quote:
"Safety is our Number One Priority, and a safe environment in the show can only be maintained if there are no loaded guns in the show," the website said.

 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It's easy to recognize hypicrites and you can see that even the mainstream media does not hesitate to do so. This is the kind of lamebrain Christian leader that makes all Christians look bad.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
In terms of casualties France has us beat hands down for 2015.
On current figures the US manages a Bataclan every 4 days. Every. 4. Days.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It's easy to recognize hypicrites and you can see that even the mainstream media does not hesitate to do so. This is the kind of lamebrain Christian leader that makes all Christians look bad.
What make me more angry (yes, angry) is that he seems to be so damned happy to be carrying a gun. I doubt soldiers carry a weapon with such joy.

[ 06. December 2015, 21:03: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
When I've seen people officially entitled to be carrying guns as part of their duties - soldiers and police - they look like people carrying tools.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
"Safety is our Number One Priority, and a safe environment in the show can only be maintained if there are no loaded guns in the show," the website said.
I suppose that a gun show is an environment where large numbers of people are expected to pick guns up and wave them around in a way that might be rather alarming if they were loaded, and they're trying to exclude the chance of someone mistaking a loaded weapon for an unloaded one.

If it was an exhibition of toaster ovens, there would be no reason for anyone to be waving guns around, or for anyone to believe that there were unloaded demo guns around, so no opportunity for confusion. So there's a real reason here - it's not just hypocrisy.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
"Safety is our Number One Priority, and a safe environment in the show can only be maintained if there are no loaded guns in the show," the website said.
I suppose that a gun show is an environment where large numbers of people are expected to pick guns up and wave them around in a way that might be rather alarming if they were loaded, and they're trying to exclude the chance of someone mistaking a loaded weapon for an unloaded one.

If anyone waves a gun around, anytime and anywhere I would kick their ass so hard they would need a wheelchair for a week. So would my b-I-l and he's a gamekeeper. He's a peaceable chap, but prats with guns really get his goat.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The NRA has a no-gun policy at their annual convention.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The NRA has a no-gun policy at their annual convention.
Well, since no-gun zones are irresistible for mass shooters, I guess they're just asking for it.
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The NRA has a no-gun policy at their annual convention.
Unbelievable.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If anyone waves a gun around, anytime and anywhere I would kick their ass so hard they would need a wheelchair for a week. So would my b-I-l and he's a gamekeeper. He's a peaceable chap, but prats with guns really get his goat.
And you're confident in your ability to kick a gun-wielder's ass without getting shot?

Interesting.

Anybody else seen American Sniper?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The NRA has a no-gun policy at their annual convention.
Now, that's pure hypocrisy.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If anyone waves a gun around, anytime and anywhere I would kick their ass so hard they would need a wheelchair for a week. So would my b-I-l and he's a gamekeeper. He's a peaceable chap, but prats with guns really get his goat.
And you're confident in your ability to kick a gun-wielder's ass without getting shot?

Interesting.

Anybody else seen American Sniper?
Yeah. That was about a guy who took weapons seriously, and it still screwed him up.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The NRA has a no-gun policy at their annual convention.
That's a false statement according to Snopes.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
OK, fair enough.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The NRA has a no-gun policy at their annual convention.
That's a false statement according to Snopes.
No loaded guns at guns shows isn't. Wonder why they have that rule...
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
The title at the top of that Snopes page is currently:

quote:
National Trifle Association
.

[Killing me] Hacktivists?
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
I feel the need to find out where the NRA convention is so I can stand outside waving a placard.

I think I’ll go with “Parisians hate guns”*. Is anyone willing to start a whip-round to pay the air fare?

*On which topic, no the Bataclan would not have been less horrific if the audience had been armed. When the police and army (very quickly) turned up, they succeeded in shooting a grand total of one of the terrorists. That was the best that highly trained police and soldiers could do. To think that Joe Public would have done any better is fantasy.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I suppose a couple of dozen armed Joe Public's might have taken out one or more terrorists. But, with all those bullets flying around they might have resulted in taking more lives than the terrorists managed - with shots off target, and the high probability in (I assume, since the lights would have been on stage) a situation with reduced lighting of mistaking another concert goer for one of the bad guys.

Basically a gun in the hands of anyone without the training given to specialist armed police* are a liability that will result in more deaths than not having a gun.

 

* and, from what I've read that includes the majority of police officers in the US.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

I'd rather nobody had been carrying. Including the attackers.
Not an answer. They were carrying. So had you been there in that situation would you have preferred an opportunity to defend yourself or not?
Of course it's a fucking answer. If guns were illegal they wouldn't have been able to just pop home and grab theirs before going back and killing people.

As for this dumbshit idea that having a gun makes you safer - in order to shoot someone you need a clear line of sight to them. Which means they also have a clear line of sight to you. You've also got to take your gun out of its holster/pocket, whereas they've already got theirs in their hands. Note that as soon as they see that you have a gun they're going to make you their number one target, so you'll get maybe one shot. To take down two shooters. Given those odds, nobody outside an action movie is going to do anything but die.

Oh, and they're wearing body armour. So your one shot will have to be a double headshot. On moving targets. While under fire. Good luck with that.

Using a concealed gun to confront the shooters in such a situation is somewhere between "pretend to be a statue" and "drop your trousers and piss on their shoes" in terms of survivability. But hey, please do keep fantasising about being an unstoppable superhuman cross between John McClane and Rambo if it makes you feel happy.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No loaded guns at guns shows isn't. Wonder why they have that rule...
I have given you my opinion that it is to eliminate the risk of mistaking a live weapon for an inert demo one (ie. a specific risk that is not present in non-gun-show environments.) So I think there's a case for that one being consistent with the NRA's general "guns make you safer" position.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:

*On which topic, no the Bataclan would not have been less horrific if the audience had been armed. When the police and army (very quickly) turned up, they succeeded in shooting a grand total of one of the terrorists. That was the best that highly trained police and soldiers could do. To think that Joe Public would have done any better is fantasy.
It would have been much worse. The fantasy is that the armed spectator will coolly draw their weapon and shoot the perpetrator(s) and only the perpetrator(s). The reality is that innocent people will be shot instead of/as well as.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And a deeper truth is that it takes considerable training to be able to shoot accurately in a stressful situation. Police and military people do regular drills and training. Civilians hold their guns and have Rambo fantasies.
What you would actually get is a couple dozen panicked people spraying the room with fire. The carnage would be immense, and the odds of killing anybody who ought to be die are at best fair. (You can buy bulletproof armor on Amazon.) But it is clear that the NRA does not believe this, and it will take some nasty blood-boltered incidents to change minds. I only hope there will be video -- that's what it'll really take, a believe-your-eyes kind of event.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But it is clear that the NRA does not believe this, and it will take some nasty blood-boltered incidents to change minds. I only hope there will be video -- that's what it'll really take, a believe-your-eyes kind of event.
Personally, I doubt the NRA would change their stance even if there was video of someone shooting up a room in which everyone was armed.

Mostly that's because I don't believe the NRA believes the shit they're saying, or cares about people's safety, at all. They care about arms manufacturers being able to make shitloads of money. That's why their solution to every single problem ever is "buy more guns".
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
To be fair to the NRA, they have been offering some solutions/concessions on the automatic weapon issue - and stressing the need for proper training and responsibility etc.

Yes, some of them probably are bat-shit crazy but there'll be plenty of moderate hunting lobbyists and what-have-you. They won't all be nutters.

But, in the final analysis, they are a lobby group. The clue is in the title. So they're not exactly going to take too kindly to legislation they feel might queer their pitch. That might be unpalatable to the rest of us who don't take glossy gun catalogues and brochures to bed with us at night, but there we are.

On another part of cyber-space I had this self-same discussion with a group of Americans - two very much in favour of the current status quo on gun control and one very much against.

One of the pro status quo interlocutors saw the right to self-defence as a 'natural' rather than a 'legal' right and believed that citizens should be able to arm themselves to whatever extent they liked - after all, some of the Founding Fathers personally owned cannon ( [Ultra confused] ) ...

In response, I posed the question about what the 'right' to bear arms would look like in a situation where there was inter-communal violence or tensions ... say Northern Ireland during the Troubles for the sake of an example.

Some 3,000 people died and many, many more were injured during 30 years of sectarian and political violence - shootings, bombings, engagements between paramilitaries and the security forces etc etc etc.

Had the general populace been armed when violence broke out in 1969 would we have seen 3,000 deaths in three months, three years ... ?

The answer was that limited gun control would have been understandable in a situation like that, but as soon as the situation returned to 'normal' (whatever 'normal' is ...) then the controls should be lifted and people be free to exercise their 'natural rights' ...

He also opined that had the general population been armed this would have acted as a deterrent to sectarian, ethnic or ideological violence as each side would know that the other was armed ...

Yeah, right.

I haven't noticed that an armed citizenry has deterred break-ins, burglaries and street crime in the US. All it seems to have done is to ensure that criminals set out with weaponry in order to overcome any resistance they receive.

In effect, it's led to an internal arms race.

I've put these points to him but he's yet to respond.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The other, orthogonal argument to be made is that, whatever Congress and their masters the NRA says, you cannot be a Christian and shill for mass gun ownership. In a couple weeks we're going to hail Jesus as the heav'n born Prince of Peace. That does not reconcile with assault rifles under the tree.

I have made this argument, with zero effect upon fundie gun nuts. It is clearly possible to believe two impossible things at the same time.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The other, orthogonal argument to be made is that, whatever Congress and their masters the NRA says, you cannot be a Christian and shill for mass gun ownership. In a couple weeks we're going to hail Jesus as the heav'n born Prince of Peace. That does not reconcile with assault rifles under the tree.
It would seem to me as though the arguments in favour of "Just War Theory" can also be used in favour of personal defence weapons, with the same kinds of caveats attached to their use.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Mostly that's because I don't believe the NRA believes the shit they're saying, or cares about people's safety, at all. They care about arms manufacturers being able to make shitloads of money. That's why their solution to every single problem ever is "buy more guns".
I am perfectly willing to believe the NRA leadership are both irrational and greedy.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It would seem to me as though the arguments in favour of "Just War Theory" can also be used in favour of personal defence weapons, with the same kinds of caveats attached to their use.
"Just" war. As likely found in reality as Scotland's national animal.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It would seem to me as though the arguments in favour of "Just War Theory" can also be used in favour of personal defence weapons, with the same kinds of caveats attached to their use.
If you're Shaolin, perhaps. But you have to twist or ignore the central tenets of Christianity's turn-the-other-cheek-ness and forgiveness if want to claim to belong to that religion.

Not even going to bother discussing how it's more often about protecting material goods. More of you should have been fed to lions, back when we had the chance of getting rid of you all.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
After the Colorado theater shooting, a few years ago, gun sales in CO went up. I found that disturbing, for the same reasons have put forth on this page of the thread. In a dark theater, you're not going to know who's who. And, when the cops arrive, they'll only know that *someone* has a gun...
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
If you're Shaolin, perhaps. But you have to twist or ignore the central tenets of Christianity's turn-the-other-cheek-ness and forgiveness if want to claim to belong to that religion.
Go on, then. Explain to me how it's possible for someone to believe "just war theory" and not be able to make the parallel arguments in favour of personal defense in similar circumstances?

(Forgiveness and turn-the-other-cheek-ness apply just as much to ensembles of people as they do to individual people.)

(Saying "just war theory is a load of crap" is fine and consistent, but there's a significant school of Christian thought that supports it. Unless they're not true Christians, of course...)
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Of course they are. Misled ones. Unled ones.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
(Forgiveness and turn-the-other-cheek-ness apply just as much to ensembles of people as they do to individual people.)
Do they? How do you know? What is this based on?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
More of you should have been fed to lions, back when we had the chance of getting rid of you all.
You can still design plain red paper cups. I believe that's killing millions of Christians, to judge by the hullabaloo it's causing.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
]Go on, then. Explain to me how it's possible for someone to believe "just war theory" and not be able to make the parallel arguments in favour of personal defense in similar circumstances?
Is it possible for someone who believes they are fucking for chastity to also believe they could fuck for celibacy?

I don't know whether to kill myself or go bowling with Marilyn.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I haven't noticed that an armed citizenry has deterred break-ins, burglaries and street crime in the US. All it seems to have done is to ensure that criminals set out with weaponry in order to overcome any resistance they receive.
Well, in spite of what most Americans think, crime is way down. Whether that's because there's a deterrent effect in thinking someone might have a gun or because of other factors is a question.

Just tonight, near me, two people attempted to rob a liquor store with a gun. Person behind the counter killed one of them; the other escaped.

This is a good piece on why Americans have trouble talking to each other about guns, much less enacting reasonable legislation.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
Apparently a lot of people are up in arms over the idea that people on the no-fly list might be prevented from buying guns. They're using the word "rights" a lot.

I have a problem with the no-fly list. It has a complete lack of anything resembling due process - we're supposed to rely on the government getting it perfectly right, in secret.

Yeah, right.

But here's the thing. I agree that owning guns is a right - it's explicitly listed right there in the second amendment - but riding on a plane is a right, too. No, that one's not explicitly listed, but most rights aren't. If the colonial authorities had instituted a no-stagecoach list, you can bet your behind that the right to travel would have made the explicit list.

I don't have a problem with the idea that people who aren't allowed to fly shouldn't be allowed guns - that seems sensible enough. I have a big problem with the current implementation of the no-fly list.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I agree that owning guns is a right - it's explicitly listed right there in the second amendment
That's a matter of some dispute. There is a militia clause, Virginia.

[ 08. December 2015, 02:43: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's a matter of some dispute. There is a militia clause, Virginia.
Yes, indeed. The current state of the law (DC vs Heller, MacDonald vs Chicago) is that the second amendment is to be read as an individual right, and that while the militia clause announces a purpose for the right to bear arms, it does not limit its scope. This can be altered by a future supreme court or by constitutional amendment, but for now, it's the law.

I am continually bemused, however, by the fact that many of the people who shout loudest about the second amendment appear completely unable to locate any other rights, and are happy to trample all over them in an orgy of authoritarianism.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I haven't noticed that an armed citizenry has deterred break-ins, burglaries and street crime in the US. All it seems to have done is to ensure that criminals set out with weaponry in order to overcome any resistance they receive.
Well, in spite of what most Americans think, crime is way down. Whether that's because there's a deterrent effect in thinking someone might have a gun or because of other factors is a question.

Just tonight, near me, two people attempted to rob a liquor store with a gun.
Case in point. Very few robberies in the UK involve firearms. Very, very few. Mostly organised blags of banks and so on. And of course, in that case it could have gone the other way had the robber shot accurately first.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
"Blags of banks," Karl?

I'm getting sort of fed up with the constitution. I know our sainted forefathers wrote it, or copied it from the British, or whatever, in good faith, but we live in a world they could never have imagined.

When they were talking about the right to bear arms, the arms were single shot muskets not automatic weapons. Why is it so hard to ratify the constitution? Why do people in this "Christian," country place more reverence on it than they do the words of Jesus?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
"Blags of banks," Karl?
In places where criminals habitually say "it's a fair cop, guv. You've got me bang to rights," a blagging is a violent robbery. Think coshes, guns, and men with tights on thier heads.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Very naughty. Now shut it, you slags. I've got my mincers peeled.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure, Saysay, overall, violent crime is decreasing on both sides of the Atlantic.

On the Constututional issues ... I'm beginning to think that there's something almost 'sola scriptura' about the US Constitution given that everyone's poring over the text of the 2nd Amendment to interpret what it might mean.

Conversely, I suspect the UK's slippery and arcane Constitution is rather more like RC or Orthodox Tradition insofar as it relies less on the interpretation of proof-texts as the aggregate total of an ethos which has other elements alongside textual ones ...

Not saying one's better than t'other, simply that there seem to be parallels.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Explain to me how it's possible for someone to believe "just war theory" and not be able to make the parallel arguments in favour of personal defense in similar circumstances?
While claiming to be Christian? A super-sized serving of stupidity with denial sauce. Obviously.

Eat up.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Fun factoid:
Thing most correlated with dropping crime rate? Reducing exposure to lead.

I'd make a pun about bullets in there, but really you are probably struggling enough with thoughts of having to thank the EPA.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re US Constitution and sola scriptura:

Absolutely, to various degrees. For some people, it's just about on the same level as Christian scripture, because of all the manifest destiny and American exceptionalism crap. God wanted us pasty-faced N. Europeans* here, guided the founders, etc.

I'm way towards the other end of the Constitution as scripture spectrum. But I've got a lot of automatic respect for the Constitution, too. And I do think that the guys did a pretty good job, except for universal equality: slaves, women, and people who didn't own property weren't equal. (John Adams should've listened to Abigail's advice to "remember the ladies".)

America keeps tripping over its mythology, and we've never found a good, healthy way to address that. If we could at least start a new chapter of it ("that was then, this is now, we value it, but we need to adapt it" or "we have a new mission, now"), we might make some progress.

*I've never heard it put quite that way, but that's pretty much what the Pilgrims were.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm getting sort of fed up with the constitution. I know our sainted forefathers wrote it, or copied it from the British, or whatever, in good faith, but we live in a world they could never have imagined.
And yet the fear that the elites have no respect for either the Constitution (or any rule of law) or the majority of the people in the country is part of what's driving the massive gun sales.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
IIRC, the number of hoseholds with guns is down, whilst the number of guns being sold is up.
All that says is the paranoid are ever more so.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
Yeah, because it's just paranoia to believe that people with absolute power would ever abuse that because they know they can get away with it.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Why do I have the feeling that most of the gun buying isn't by those most likely to be actually abused by authority for no reason?
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
I don't know. Why do you have that feeling? Maybe because you've bought a bunch of media lies about people you feel justified in looking down on but know nothing about? Or...?

Are we talking legal or illegal purchases?

I don't even know who isn't actually likely to be abused by authority for no reason.

(There are certainly systemic issues that lead to certain populations having more interactions with the police, which is likely to lead to a higher percentage of those populations encountering psychopathic bullies, but AFAIK there's no magical trait that allows anyone to escape any possibility of such an interaction). I mean, seriously, they've been flat-out executing (white, male) veterans and Christian ministers not accused of crimes for a good long while now.

But, tell me: Trump gets elected and starts implementing some of his more batshit-crazy ideas, performing massive deportations and bringing back internment camps.

What is anyone on the left going to do about it?
 
Posted by Egeria (# 4517) on :
 
Oh really? What media lies, exactly? What group or groups of people are we supposed to be looking down on?

And what "elites" are comin' to git ordinary Americans (if it's "ordinary" to be a paranoid whacko gun nut who hates the very idea of "gummint")? Bankers? Tennis champs? the Junior League? The American Historical Association?

Saysay rambles on and on with these nonsensical fantasies about how the police and middle class white women are out to oppress her. Just more sewage in the pipeline. The problem with specifying these elites is that once she does, her silliness will exposed again.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
While claiming to be Christian? A super-sized serving of stupidity with denial sauce. Obviously.
That's not as cute as no prophet's celibacy line, but just as pointless.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Well, I think there's truth to what saysay says. Not the only truth, but a good chunk of it--both about experiences and mindsets. Catch the news, any given day, to see some of what she means.

Other parcels of truth, ISTM:

--Many of the elite (E) feel as scared of the non-elite (NE) as the NE feel of them.

--Lots of the E, even the well-meaning, have no clue about the NE. When Barbara Ehrenreich wrote "Nickel and Dimed", about low-wage workers (AKA the working poor), she was shocked to find out how bad things are for them--and her politics are progressive! Most of what she talked about was pretty basic to my understanding of the working poor, but she was really clueless. (FYI: I know *I'm* clueless about many, many things.)

--Gated communities.

--What saysay describes, what the news describes, are the sorts of things that happen in the leadup to a revolution--a class war, even if it doesn't lead to full-on civil war.

As to what the Left would do: they'd probably make as many mistakes as the Right would, but possibly different ones. And they'd try to stop the camps. As would a good many of the Right, I think.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
That's not as cute as no prophet's celibacy line, but just as pointless.
How about this then:
The only way you can argue that Christianityą has any merit of any kind is if it promotes being brave enough to be a pacifist. "Just war" is a mealy-mouthed term for "jihad". Extrapolate that to any scale you like, it doesn't change how fucking stupid it is to pretend that violence should be a part of a religion of peace.

I personally do believe that there are worse things than dying. Being an embodiment for a philosophy that drives ongoing human suffering˛ is probably one of those things.

ą Or Islam, or any organized religion that isn't utterly reprehensible˛.

˛ Helllooooo Scientology!
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
But, tell me: Trump gets elected and starts implementing some of his more batshit-crazy ideas, performing massive deportations and bringing back internment camps.

What is anyone on the left going to do about it?
How about using public discourse, legal means, and representative government to try to forestall such idiocy?

Civilized society. It's so kooky like that.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
"Just war" is a mealy-mouthed term for "jihad". Extrapolate that to any scale you like, it doesn't change how fucking stupid it is to pretend that violence should be a part of a religion of peace.
Which is fine, and rather missing my point, which is that, as I see it, the arguments for "just war" can also me made to apply to individual people. Not liking either is consistent. Thinking it's reasonable to believe one but not the other? I don't see the argument.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
But, tell me: Trump gets elected and starts implementing some of his more batshit-crazy ideas, performing massive deportations and bringing back internment camps.

What is anyone on the left going to do about it?
How about using public discourse, legal means, and representative government to try to forestall such idiocy?

Civilized society. It's so kooky like that.
RooK you sound actually hopeful in this response. Pistol whip me awake! Live by the gun, die by the gun seems more apt. Maybe we can have a nice marching song about Poor Dead Rump.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
But, tell me: Trump gets elected and starts implementing some of his more batshit-crazy ideas, performing massive deportations and bringing back internment camps.

What is anyone on the left going to do about it?
How about using public discourse, legal means, and representative government to try to forestall such idiocy?

Civilized society. It's so kooky like that.
Presumably he could be impeached if he breached the constitution on a large scale ?

[ 09. December 2015, 12:35: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
He could be impeached if he broke it on a small scale. Seriously, he's not going to be able to get away with deporting all Muslims or some such crap.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It would be far more efficient to not elect Trump in the first place. The man is clearly unfit to hold office.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
He could be impeached if he broke it on a small scale. Seriously, he's not going to be able to get away with deporting all Muslims or some such crap.
He never suggested such.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
No, he only suggested deporting all immigrants. Which is no less nutty.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, he only suggested deporting all immigrants. Which is no less nutty.
Actually, he never suggested that either.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, he only suggested deporting all immigrants. Which is no less nutty.
Actually, he never suggested that either.
Just as well. What would happen to all those who fled varying degrees of tyranny in Europe over the last 500 years?
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Which is fine, and rather missing my point, which is that, as I see it, the arguments for "just war" can also me made to apply to individual people.
Nice try, Quixote. I never wanted anything to do with your so-called point. I merely stated that it was contemptible to believe in mutually-exclusive fairy tales: "just wars" and "religions of peace".

But if you want to discuss the concept of least-bad options at a personal level with respect to lethal hardware, why don't we just call that what it is? Cowardice.

[ 10. December 2015, 19:32: Message edited by: RooK ]
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It would be far more efficient to not elect Trump in the first place. The man is clearly unfit to hold office.
Let alone his wig.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I prefer Sancho Panza to the good Knight of the Sad Countenance. In his stupidity, he turned out to be quite wise.

Still, what can you do? Fight the good fight, I suppose, even if all the tools you have are a bow-legged donkey, a rusty sword, a barber's tray for a helmet and you end up tilting at windmills.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Cheesy - your reference to fiction is worthy only in the sense that it raises the problem of fiction in the understanding of guns and how people use them.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I don't know, I think we could all learn a lot from reading things like Don Quixote. Madness looks like sense and sense looks like madness, depending on your perspective.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
Well, the USA has all those gun owners who say they are ready to do battle against a tyrannical government. If The President Donald tried to round up Muslims, what are the chances the 2nd Amendment crowd would do anything to stop it? Hands up, who's going to bear arms and defend their Muslim neighbours' basic freedoms by shooting police or armed forces or whoever is sent to carry The Donald's solution?

Anybody?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Which is fine, and rather missing my point, which is that, as I see it, the arguments for "just war" can also me made to apply to individual people.
You have asserted this. I asked you to demonstrate it, and you ignored me. I must conclude that this is a mere assertion and you have no argument or evidence for it.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
It is interesting that with Trump, he is morphing it appears sucessfully the 'government as enemy' into Moslem enemies. The rabble must have their villains. Trump's gift is to offer a good mythological villain based on a kernel of fact piped into their brains by an obedient media. Conspiracy once named just needs a few ocassional facts to keep it going. Whether Moslems, Jews, Blacks.

The rejection of Trump by other politicians plays into his absurd charisma. They are part of the prior conspiracy re big government which wants to take guns, liberty and enslave the nation. He's selling that the country needs to wake up to the real threat, and weirdly let Trump become the government against the establishment and the Moslems, or rather the image of the dirty bearded extremist. With the appeal to (almost) violence at home. If there are a few more shootings he might be able to exploit responsive lynchings, so long as he condemns the violence but not the feelings motivating them.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
There's a meme running around on the net which goes something like, If only all black men under the age of 30 go and join the NRA, and buy a gun, there will be stringent gun control laws on the books by the end of the month.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, he only suggested deporting all immigrants. Which is no less nutty.
Actually, he never suggested that either.
Yes he did. Just not in his latest nutjob speech.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, he only suggested deporting all immigrants. Which is no less nutty.
Actually, he never suggested that either.
Yes he did. Just not in his latest nutjob speech.
I know there is a lot of hysteria regarding Trump these days. He has taken over two threads here one of which is totally unrelated to politics, but compare the headline in your link to the post I quoted and you will see that I am correct.

Trump never suggested deporting all immigrants.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Trump never suggested deporting all immigrants.
You are fucking stupid.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Well, strictly speaking deporting all illegal immigrants. But, he's also on record as saying he'll make it illegal to be an immigrant if you're a muslim. I'm sure he'll find a way of declaring other immigrants as illegal.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, strictly speaking deporting all illegal immigrants.
And their children, who are legally US citizens.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, strictly speaking deporting all illegal immigrants.
Ahhhh, so someone here can read!

Not Rook so much, but someone at least!
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
Trump says enough exaggerated moronic things. He really doesn't need other people helping him by taking it even further.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
saysay

You're right. Trump's act of pandering to prejudices which was thinly disguised as an unworkable counter productive and expensive excuse for a policy does apply to illegal immigrants and their offspring. I misread Alan Cresswell. No need to 'credit' Trump with being even more moronic than he is.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
No worries, Barnabas.

It's just that that's exactly the sort of misrepresentation (whether deliberate or caused by people skimming articles too fast) a lot of people are angry about. After it's been done to you too many times, particularly when it's offered as some kind of proof that you are some kind of -ist or horrible person in a way that the person misrepresenting you is not, it tends to be rage inducing.

My guess is that people who only have access to media reports about Trump and his supporters are way overestimating the degree to which he is popular because of the specific horrible things he says or specific horrible policies and underestimating the degree he is popular because he is seen as authentic and is refusing to play by the rules of political correctness (see Doublethink's link in Purgatory). I know it likely doesn't help people on your side of the pond understand, but it seems somewhat comparable to the reasons why Bill Maher (the man we love to hate) and his show Politically Incorrect is popular on the Left.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Just offhand, and I'm only one person, I estimate Trump's popularity by his stance firmly atop the GOP presidential hopeful polls, and the number of people he gets to his campaign rallies. No naughty nasty evil liberal/progressive media plots required.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
And you can estimate that he is popular because of those things, but not necessarily accurately speculate as to why. Which people seem intent on doing.

I ask again, how many Trump supporters have you actually talked to yourself?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
The White House petition site in my sig now has a sort of universal carry petition:

quote:
Allow Constitutional carry of firearms for all U.S. citizens legally qualified to own firearms

Whereas Governmental authorities world wide need to allocate significant resources on the urgent matters of; climate, and importing Muslim refugees; limited resources make the provision of reasonable protection from Islamic militants and other deranged criminals an impossibility.

Therefor, until further notice; in accordance with the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; all U.S. Citizens legally qualified to own a firearm shall be permitted to carry any legally owned firearm in any public place for the specific purpose of their own self defense and the defense of others.
Published Date: Dec 04, 2015
[Help] Yet another good reason to stay home...
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Trump says enough exaggerated moronic things. He really doesn't need other people helping him by taking it even further.
I'm pretty sure it would be understood by even the most rabid Palin-hating spotted-screech-owl-impersonating über-liberal that "immigrants" as used in this thread was referring to those in the US sans visa. But I do apologize for the lack of precision in my wording.

Please feel free to get back to fornicating with firearms.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And you can estimate that he is popular because of those things, but not necessarily accurately speculate as to why. Which people seem intent on doing.

I ask again, how many Trump supporters have you actually talked to yourself?
I haven't spoke to any but I have heard a few grunt.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

I haven't spoke to any but I have heard a few grunt.
Good friends of this man then?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

I haven't spoke to any but I have heard a few grunt.
Good friends of this man then?
You might not believe it, but I wasn't thinking of him.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And you can estimate that he is popular because of those things, but not necessarily accurately speculate as to why. Which people seem intent on doing.

I ask again, how many Trump supporters have you actually talked to yourself?
What good would that do? Are you saying that nobody is accurately reporting what these people say about themselves? NOBODY? Or just that the majority of reports are wrong, and the truth is being obscured?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Focus group of Trump supporters as reported by that bastion of progressivism, the WSJ.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
I'm saying that the media riled shit up during the Baltimore riots. I'm saying that all signs are pointing to them doing it again. I'm saying that maybe people should talk to each other before condemning one another based on news filtered through media.

But what good would talking to people who might disagree with me do? I might have to change my mind! That can't happen.

And the WSJ is obviously accurate and non-biased. Especially when it comes to the opinions of the working class.

WTF?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
If I talk to one Trump supporter, what does that say about the rest of his supporters? Nothing. The plural of anecdote is not data.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Appreciating your distrust of the media, saysay, you might also appreciate this look at the Frank Luntz focus group study.

This quote from the article says it all really.
quote:
The totalitarian society billionaires bought. Right there, in Luntzian color.
Distrusting the more established media (like the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post whose articles on the Luntz study support one another) simply delivers Trump supporters into the hands of those billionaires doesn't it? Or, if you like, those other billionaires. Like Murdoch and Trump.

I think the Luntz study, as now quite widely reported, does constitute evidence of how Trump supporters think; their hatred of Obama, their distrust of the conventional media, the extent to which their minds have been distorted by the propagandist source of information they do trust.

Frank Luntz's twitter feed links directly to the Washington Post article on his study. So he clearly endorses the Washington Post article as an accurate report of the conversations which took place and his own response to them.

That's evidence, saysay. Evidence that these people have been brainwashed, and not by the conventional media.

[ 13. December 2015, 06:43: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
<bump>

Really? How did this family become the darlings of the right?

Drunk, abusive, suffering from a serious illness, has a gun. And it's Obama's fault.

To call them dysfunctional would be an insult to dysfunctional families.
 
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :
 
The entire Palin family, including Sarah, was involved in a bar brawl last year. Personally, I think violence runs in the family.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
How did this family become the darlings of the right? Drunk, abusive, suffering from a serious illness, has a gun.
Add sexually dysfunctional and you've **got** the far right! [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
5 dead in school shooting, La Loche, Saskatchewan

Not immune in Canada. Been to La Loche many times. It's in northern Sask on the voyageur canoe route. Very very upsetting.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
5 dead in school shooting, La Loche, Saskatchewan

Not immune in Canada. Been to La Loche many times. It's in northern Sask on the voyageur canoe route. Very very upsetting.
[Votive]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Four good guys with guns.
 
Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on :
 
Now that is comedy gold.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
And one of the snow related deaths belongs here. Partway down the page. Probably belongs in the driver thread as well.

Blizzard news
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Fuller link
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
The recent deadly Oregon militia standoff's (linkie) got all the right and appropriately weird names.

First of all, it's in a place called 'Malheur' - which is 'bad luck' in French. Then, one of the leaders's called Ammon(...ition?) Bundy and another, rather dead one, LaVoy Finicum. Without being too finicky (after all, he's been finished off and gone to The Void Eternal): with names like these, people are just bound to get crazy.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
The Grauniad is telling us, BTW:
quote:
The Oregon militia, made up of mostly out-of-state anti-government activists, says it wants to establish local control of public lands. [Italics mine]
This is not a thread about the motivations of nutcase militias, but you can't help wondering if some people haven't got too much time and too many guns at hand.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
BTW:
quote:
The Oregon militia, made up of mostly out-of-state anti-government activists, says it wants to establish local control of public lands. [Italics mine]
You do get the feeling that some people need their irony meters calibrated. A group of armed men occupy Federal Government property with the stated aim of getting the feds to hand that land to the local community, and they don't see the irony of non-locals taking this action against the wishes of the vast majority of the local community.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Four good guys with guns.
Over a $25 fee. Notice there was a woman involved egging things on. I really doubt the complaints about the fee required her calling for back-up. The last road-rage incident I read about, involving guns and death, was repeatedly escalated by a woman passenger in one of the cars. There are a lot of men wanting to be John Wayne and a lot of women wanting to be married to him in our country. I guess, as long as they all hang out together it's not so bad.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
The last road-rage incident I read about, involving guns and death, was very near my home last week and involved two women. Driver A rear-ended Driver B at a red light. Driver A (who caused the collision) got out of her car with a gun and fatally shot Driver B.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Wow. I'll be interested in how that comes out. The very first road rage incident I ever heard of was two women arguing on the interstate. They both took an exit and parked on the side of the ramp. The woman in the front car got out and marched, unarmed, toward the one still in her car. The one in the car took out her gun and killed the woman coming toward her. She got off because she, "felt threatened." That's been about 15 years ago and I'm still mad about it.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Wow. I'll be interested in how that comes out.
She was depressed and apparently suicidal, so she'll probably plead insanity.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
... The woman in the front car got out and marched, unarmed, toward the one still in her car. The one in the car took out her gun and killed the woman coming toward her. She got off because she, "felt threatened." That's been about 15 years ago and I'm still mad about it.
I don't blame you: no matter how threatened she felt, if she was still in her car, surely all she had to do was drive away?

Now I think about it, someone who carries a gun in their car (and is as ready to use it as she obviously was) has bugger-all to feel threatened about.

Rather the reverse. [Mad]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
Now I think about it, someone who carries a gun in their car (and is as ready to use it as she obviously was) has bugger-all to feel threatened about.
Except someone else with a gun in their car, and being ready to use it. But, that just leads to an arms race - be better armed than the other person, and shoot first just in case. Might as well just sign up to drive in a Death Race and be done with it.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Michigan and now Kansas. What utterance can anyone make other than to reaffirm the OP title.

Like a grim roll-call.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Michigan and now Kansas. What utterance can anyone make other than to reaffirm the OP title.

Like a grim roll-call.
What, no love for Colorado?

I guess green party-occupy assholes killing cops don't make the grade...
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Well, it doesn't pass the widely used "four or more dead" mark for mass shootings.

Which doesn't make the killing of a deputy, and wounding two others, any less wrong, of course. Nor does it make easy access to guns any less stupid. Left wing idiots, right wing idiots, normal everyday Americans ... they can all end up shooting someone if they have a gun readily at hand and a bad day.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... they can all end up shooting someone if they have a gun readily at hand and a bad day.
And if these idiots get their way, so can their children, no matter how young they are.

There are actual, real people who would stop their kids from playing with matches, but let them play with guns?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
Maybe one of them will finally shoot this horse...
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:

There are actual, real people who would stop their kids from playing with matches, but let them play with guns?
I'm pretty sure that anyone that would allow their child to shoot a handgun would also allow their child to use a match.

I am certain that I have children to whom I happily hand a box of matches. This is different from letting them play with matches.

I'd let them fire a little .22 rifle under appropriate supervision (shooting prone, on a controlled range ...) if they wanted to. I wouldn't hand them a handgun at all. It's quite possible that when they're older and stronger, they'd reach a point when I'd consider letting them fire handguns on a range, and they might reach that point before they're 14.

None of this is what is commonly understood by the phrase "playing with guns" though.
 
Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :
 
At least kids in the USA are protected from the evil that is Kinder Eggs.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Maybe one of them will finally shoot this horse...
Oh, if only the horses had guns.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Michigan and now Kansas. What utterance can anyone make other than to reaffirm the OP title.

Like a grim roll-call.
What, no love for Colorado?

I guess green party-occupy assholes killing cops don't make the grade...
Perhaps if you fucking morons would stop shooting people for at least a moment, we could catch up on them all.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Michigan and now Kansas. What utterance can anyone make other than to reaffirm the OP title.

Like a grim roll-call.
What, no love for Colorado?

I guess green party-occupy assholes killing cops don't make the grade...
Perhaps if you fucking morons would stop shooting people for at least a moment, we could catch up on them all.
Nah. Fuck 'em. They seem to have a quota to kill each year.

Perhaps when it gets into the tens of thousands dead in a single shooting they'll do something.

But not yet so fuck 'em.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
Now I think about it, someone who carries a gun in their car (and is as ready to use it as she obviously was) has bugger-all to feel threatened about.
Except someone else with a gun in their car, and being ready to use it. But, that just leads to an arms race - be better armed than the other person, and shoot first just in case. Might as well just sign up to drive in a Death Race and be done with it.
Arms race is a perfect way to put it.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
Right time for another ignorant Brit post.

Sunday is the 20th anniversary of the Dumblane massacre. 16 people died, one teacher and the rest were 5 and 6 year old.

To mark this anniversary the BBC ran a very moving documentary where victims relatives and survivors tell their story.

There's the single father who had lost his wife to breast cancer who lost his only daughter. There's the woman, who on that very day was going to a memorial service for her husband who had died leaving her with 2 children. And on and on.

The beauty and pain in all their stories is totally evident. This documentary definitely comes with a health warning.

But here's the thing: This is the only school mass-shooting the UK has ever had.

Britain already had relatively tight controls on gun-ownership but they were tightened further.

How many devastating stories does it take?

AFZ
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Many, many more.

Take this woman, for example (apologies for the Mail link).

She posted on FB, "My right to protect my child with my gun trumps your fear of my gun". Her child (4 yo) shot her in the back with her handgun.

Now, where she goes from here is anyone's guess, but at least she'll have some gun-free time in hospital to think about her approach to firearms.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
When the Constitution, divinely dictated and immutable, declares a right to bear arms then it is clearly the God-given duty of each and every American to own an arsenal that would be the envy of many third world dictators. No number of tragic stories will be enough to change that.

Nor, it seems, will any amount of pointing out that bit about a "well ordered militia" and the fact that the vast majority of gun-owning Americans aren't members of even a disordered militia.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
Yep.

[Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... Take this woman, for example (apologies for the Mail link)....
What I found truly astonishing is the kid was returned to his home: a home where he's allowed to play with a loaded gun and doesn't have to wear his seatbelt. WTF??? Don't they have child protection laws in Florida? Aren't police - and everyone else, for that matter - required to report incidents of child abuse and neglect? How does such a reckless and negligent parent still have legal custody of any of her children?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
According to this account the child "was returned to his family" - which is non-specific, and could mean grandparents, although while the gun-nut is in hospital she can't do any more harm (one hopes dad has an extra functional neuron and is busy going through the house removing each and every gun, or at the least unloading them and putting them in a locked chest in the attic).

Also, "Florida Department of Children and Family Services was also notified".
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Kid might be much worse off in foster care. There were news stories, some years back, that the Florida foster care system is so messed up that sometimes a kid isn't checked on for years--and then is found to have disappeared.
[Tear]
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
In Washington State they now have a killer called a Good Samaritan for shooting a robber in a store. Suggestions that it may not have been necessary to kill him, or that he may have been mentally ill, were ridiculed in the paper's comments. The police saw no evidence of anything wrong in the action, and the man is a local hero who has justified the laws allowing the carrying of concealed weapons. [Projectile]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
In Washington State they now have a killer called a Good Samaritan for shooting a robber in a store. Suggestions that it may not have been necessary to kill him, or that he may have been mentally ill, were ridiculed in the paper's comments. The police saw no evidence of anything wrong in the action, and the man is a local hero who has justified the laws allowing the carrying of concealed weapons. [Projectile]
To be fair, this does seem to be a perfect example of why the pro-gun lobby thinks they are a good thing. From what I've read there's little doubt that, had he not been shot, the hatchet-wielder would have killed the store clerk.

Whether one good-news story is enough to cancel out all the bad-news stories is debatable, but it's disingenuous to deny that it's a good-news story in the first place.
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
In Washington State they now have a killer called a Good Samaritan for shooting a robber in a store. Suggestions that it may not have been necessary to kill him, or that he may have been mentally ill, were ridiculed in the paper's comments. The police saw no evidence of anything wrong in the action, and the man is a local hero who has justified the laws allowing the carrying of concealed weapons. [Projectile]
To be fair, this does seem to be a perfect example of why the pro-gun lobby thinks they are a good thing. From what I've read there's little doubt that, had he not been shot, the hatchet-wielder would have killed the store clerk.

Whether one good-news story is enough to cancel out all the bad-news stories is debatable, but it's disingenuous to deny that it's a good-news story in the first place.
That's a good-news story? Couldn't the killer have shot the man in the leg to bring him down if there was no alternative to a violent response? But lives and bullets are cheap in the USA, so what am I worrying my head about? Mentally ill people aren't needed and multiple social and legal problems were avoided by this heroic deed.

Again [Projectile]
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
... Couldn't the killer have shot the man in the leg to bring him down if there was no alternative to a violent response? ...
NO. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. Once more with feeling, NO. Even police officers, who are trained to shoot to the centre of mass, miss their targets about 2/3 of the time and often hit innocent bystanders. Shooting to "miss" or "wound" is a moronic idea that only works in fiction. In real life, it practically guarantees shooting the wrong person.
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
... Couldn't the killer have shot the man in the leg to bring him down if there was no alternative to a violent response? ...
NO. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. Once more with feeling, NO. Even police officers, who are trained to shoot to the centre of mass, miss their targets about 2/3 of the time and often hit innocent bystanders. Shooting to "miss" or "wound" is a moronic idea that only works in fiction. In real life, it practically guarantees shooting the wrong person.
Then I'm afraid I shall have to go on record as an idealistic moron who wants to avoid any more "Good Samaritan" killings.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Stercus Tauri--

I'm not in favor of people carrying guns around with them. This was a horrible situation, for everyone involved, and it's horrible that anyone died. From what the article said, the "Good Samaritan" was quite shaken, afterwards. So it's not something he's taking lightly. [Votive]

This was a convenience store. I don't know about wherever you happen to be, but American convenience stores are habitually very dangerous places for the employees.

So...a thought experiment: You stop off at a convenience store to pick up some snacks. You run into a masked man, who takes a few swings at you with a hatchet, then starts actually cutting the clerk at the register. The clerk is in imminent danger of grave injury or death--and you may be next.

Scenario 1: You are unarmed. What do you do?

Scenario 2: You have a gun. What do you do?


Second thought experiment: *You're* the clerk, being attacked with a hatchet, and there's a customer standing there who might be able to help, in some way, armed or not. What do you want the customer to do?


As Marvin the Martian said, this is a perfect example of why the pro-carry folks think everyone should carry guns.
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
A thought experiment is not real life, so I don't know the answer. When I was once threatened by an armed Homeland Security thug at the US border, I simply froze, but then laughed at him. I hope, if I was in the store scenario, I would try to stop the assailant, and I hope that others would pile in to help, but I don't know. I don't think any of us can say honestly what we would do - only what we hope we would do.

This kept me awake last night, hovering between tears and vomiting. The reality of this barbarism that faces ordinary people every day is overwhelming.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
There have been examples I've seen posted (maybe even on this thread, certainly via my FB feed) over the last year of "Good Samaritans" successfully restraining an armed assailant, unarmed Good Samaritans. They don't get reported by the gun-loving controlled media because they don't fit the "good guy with a gun" paradigm, nor the "if you don't have a gun you're the victim" paradigm.

And, of course, in the time between "Good Samaritan" stories how many innocent people get shot accidentally by "good guys with a gun"? An awful lot more than avoid getting injured by the occasional "bad guy" shot by a "good guy".
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
A gun is deadly force, and the decision to use deadly force comes at the moment one decides, "Yep, I'm going to take my gun with me." That decision, if one encounters bad luck, bad traffic, a robbery, whatever, will lead to other decisions. One is how to be sure that no one can take the gun away and use it against us. That's the fundamental reason for shooting to kill. I'm sorry, but it's really ucky game theory.

Now, you all know I'm a total pinko when it comes to guns and a lot of other stuff, but like any other tool, there are rules on how to use a gun. There seems to be a never-ending supply of idiots who make the news because they failed to follow those rules. Like letting a 4-year-old play with a .45 behind one's back ... [Eek!] [brick wall]

Stercus Tauri, I'm totally with you: I don't think I could kill someone robbing a convenience store, but that's primarily because I would never be carrying a gun in a convenience store. On a hike in the bush, maybe. In town, fucking never. But as I said above, the decision to use deadly force is made when one decides to carry a gun, and once someone draws their gun, they are committed to a certain set of actions. The easiest way to avoid that -- plus the overwhelming probability of a stupid tragedy -- and I wish more Americans would do the math -- is to not have a gun at all.

The sad truth is that statistically, we know that for every Mr."I foiled a robbery", there were a couple of murders, several suicides and a whole bunch of accidents that resulted in approximately 20 times as many deaths.

But once armed dude drew, he had to do what he had to do, and the clerk is probably glad he did. Sucks, and it sucks that it'll be in next month's NRA magazine, and the gun freaks will all be, like, "See?". The USA is well and truly fucked up. Thanks, SCOTUS and Heller vs. DC. [Mad]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
A gun is deadly force, and the decision to use deadly force comes at the moment one decides, "Yep, I'm going to take my gun with me."
Not quite, I think. For sure, once you decide to carry a gun, you have (should have) made the decision that you are in principle prepared to use deadly force in order to protect yourself or others.

But you don't make the decision that this situation warrants the use of deadly force until you take the gun in your hand. In many situations, you retain the ability to walk away instead.

I also agree that the decision to carry a gun closes down some of your other options. If you're getting robbed in the street, you have the option to act passive and compliant, and hope to not get hurt. By carrying a gun, you have pretty much made the decision not to do that.

Basically, I think I'm agreeing with you, whilst niggling over some of your wording.

I'm a little curious if the people who are so stupid about gun safety (letting small children have control of them etc.) are equally stupid about power saws, exposed electrical wires, and other things that children shouldn't have control of, or whether it's just guns.

There certainly seems to be a similar species of idiot who owns large dogs.

[ 16. March 2016, 04:04: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
A thought experiment is not real life, so I don't know the answer.
It was real life for the people in that store.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
It was real life for the toddler who shot his mum in the back, too.

On balance, then: do the advantages of an easily-armed citizenry outweigh the disadvantages? I don't think I have to expend too much brainpower calculating that.
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
A thought experiment is not real life, so I don't know the answer.
It was real life for the people in that store.
That is the point I hoped I was making. A thought experiment where you have the safety and time to weigh options has no bearing on this whatsoever. I can't tell you what I would have done; only what I hope I would have been able to do. In many cultures including my own, shooting to kill is neither a legal nor a moral option - a concept almost impossible to explain to many Americans.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It was real life for the toddler who shot his mum in the back, too.

On balance, then: do the advantages of an easily-armed citizenry outweigh the disadvantages? I don't think I have to expend too much brainpower calculating that.
As I said, it's a debatable point. I happen to fall on the side that says the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, but that doesn't mean I deny that the advantages exist at all.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
In many cultures including my own, shooting to kill is neither a legal nor a moral option - a concept almost impossible to explain to many Americans.
It's not a legal option where I am (UK) either. But I can easily imagine reasonably analogous situations - say I'm stopping off at the shop on my way to a cricket match and have my bat in my hand - am I justified in hitting the hatchet-wielding maniac with the bat to stop him killing someone else, even if my doing so kills him?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
ST--

The purpose of my thought experiments was to get you to think about that real life situation. Whatever you think of the choices the customer made, he was right there, in a random situation, with the clerk's life and his own hanging in the balance.

He could've reacted in a variety of very understandable ways: frozen, like a deer in headlights; run around the inside of the store, jibbering; run out, gotten in his car, and escaped; called 911 for help, either in or outside of the store; tried to divert the attacker's attention, hoping the clerk could escape; throw things at the clerk; grabbed a bottle of wine, and hit the attacker over the head; spray the attacker with a fire extinguisher; set off a fire alarm; or used a weapon, which he happened to have.

He used his gun to stop a murder, possibly two. You implied he shot to kill. Do we know that? As I said earlier, I'm not pro carry, and it's horrible that *any* of it happened; but I can't condemn him.

You mentioned American laws and morals. Shooting someone usually isn't legal here, except for some defense situations--which this was. Morally, shooting someone usually isn't ok here, either. But this was defense of self and other.

I suspect a majority of Americans would at least sympathize with the customer's situation, and possibly judge him as not having other options. Some people would go out and buy a gun. And some would work on gun control.

(See the gun control petition link in my current sig. There've been several petitions there. Currently, IIRC, there are just a couple.)
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
If I were ever in the situation where I had to kill someone in self-defence, I wouldn't call this a good news story.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
This isn't hellish (except for the context), but it fits and I don't think it's worth a new thread.

We've been told repeatedly on these boards that it is not possible to shoot to maim when trying to effect an arrest -that it's the surest way of killing innocent bystanders, that it only happens in the movies. I've accepted this wholesale, I know nothing about guns (except for a couple of times I've been clay pigeon shooting - I was complete rubbish). But that's exactly what the Belgian police did when they arrested those two terrorist suspects recently - they shot them in the leg.

So ??? - any comments from more gun-savvy Shipmates?

M.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Probably context.

I've not seen much over here, just what I've managed to read on the BBC. But one set of videos of a man shot in the leg do show a street that is empty of all but armed police. If there were no civilians present, and the police felt secure that they were not about to be shot at, then the risks of shooting to injure rather than kill must be reduced. And, a suspect alive and able to talk may give the police far more information, and more quickly, than a dead suspect. That would be part of the calculation going through the minds of the officers in charge - more information means shutting down the rest of the network quicker, which means reduced chance of a further attack.

If there were civilians present and the police had reason to suspect he could detonate a bomb or open fire with a gun I expect they'd be much less likely to aim at the legs.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Interesting, because how I see it in my mind's eye (from the pictures) is that it was in a crowded street. I shall have to go back and re-watch the news reports. It's obvious why they would want to keep a suspect alive, quite apart from the fact that it's generally better not to kill people. I was more interested in the physical possibility of it.

And I vaguely remember hearing that for one suspect at least the police didn't know whether or not he was wearing a suicide vest until after he was arrested. Again, I need to go back and re-watch.

M.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I know UK police shot the guy who beheaded Lee Rigby in the leg, he was brandishing a machete - but a bit calmer because a member of the public had being talking to him and trying to calm him down.

I think the issue has always been relative risk, rather the ability to physically do it, especially when they have laser gun sights.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
That's assuming that the cops who shot someone in the leg were aiming at said leg.

(And just because someone does make an amazing shot under favourable circumstances doesn't mean it should be attempted in the majority of situations.)
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

I think the issue has always been relative risk, rather the ability to physically do it, especially when they have laser gun sights.
If you are carrying a handgun and someone is charging at you, laser sights won't improve your chances of hitting his leg much. If you're a sniper shooting prone from the top of the next building at standing targets, you could accurately place bullets in people's legs all day.

It's more a question of the weapon and the platform rather than the sights.

I have no idea whether typical suicide vests would be detonated by the vest itself being shot...

[ 27. March 2016, 12:53: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It depends on the explosive, but if it's a modern commercial or military explosive (including TNT, C4, Semtex) then a bullet won't set it off as these are designed to be stable and not go off by being bounced around in the back of a truck or similar. They need a detonator to go off. Now, if the bullet hit the detonator that would be different. Older explosives, like dynamite, are less stable and can be set off by bullets. Homemade explosives even more so.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
Just another day in America.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
In the headline feed next to it, a report about a guy getting arrested at McDonald's for putting soda in a water cup. Taken together, it gives a pretty good picture for who is in charge here.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
In the headline feed next to it, a report about a guy getting arrested at McDonald's for putting soda in a water cup. Taken together, it gives a pretty good picture for who is in charge here.
Actually he asked for a cup of water, which is free, and then dumped the water out and filled it with soda, which is not free. When the manager asked him to return the soda, he not only refused but also ran the manager over with his car.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Oh. Well, the car thing...

Serves me right for just reading the headline. On the other hand, what a fucked up headline.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Headline writers do so much enjoy sleight of hand in order to manipulate a response.

Eg.' Policeman uses stun-gun on person staring in a threatening manner'.
Read on to find that the stare was accompanied by the brandishing of a knife.

This is a fictitious example of emphasis shifting.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
That reminds me of a headline I read years ago that read "Man assaults 17-year-old boy."

If you read the article, the "man" was 18 years old and they were classmates together.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Just another day in America.
The local sheriff has gone on air to recommend that other members of the extended Rhoden family arm themselves.

Like guns were any help to the eight people who were ambushed and shot. Not that I've read anything about the victims owning guns, but when a family has a half million dollars worth of illegal marijuana growing in the yard, a group of roosters in separate cages, four coon hounds, a wolf hybrid, and assorted pit bulls, I'm inclined to make that assumption.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It does look as though those shootings were somehow related to the criminal activities of some of the victims. Although a tragedy, especially as I would be surprised if at least some of the victims weren't directly involved in whatever the family business was (and, the baby who will grow up without mom certainly is innocent), it doesn't seem to fall into the same avoidable category of many mass shootings.

Or, the latest accidental shooting by a young child. If, as the BBC article suggests, the gun belonged to the security guard father then why was it even in the car? Surely, it could have been kept at work for him to check out of a locked cupboard at the start of his shift, and checked back in at the end. And, even if he had to supply his own gun (and, hence, legitimately transport it in his car) then surely he'd have had enough training to know not to transport it loaded and to store it somewhere out of reach.

It seems to reflect a complacency about guns, an attitude that these dangerous tools are everyday items and can be tossed on the seat of the car when you get in along with the rest of the junk that most of us find accumulating in the car. Would that security guard faced any charges if his car (with the gun floating around loose inside) was stolen and the gun subsequently used in a crime?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If, as the BBC article suggests, the gun belonged to the security guard father then why was it even in the car?
Stupidity.

It doesn't take "training" to know that you should keep small children and dangerous objects separated. It's not just a gun thing, either - knives, power tools, medication and so on are all dangerous, and you shouldn't let little children near any of them.

There's nothing in particular wrong with having dangerous stuff in the back of a car (except for the theft risk, but let's ignore that for the moment), and there's nothing wrong with having a child in the back of your car - it just can't be the same car at the same time.

This doesn't require training - it just requires thinking.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
...There's nothing in particular wrong with having dangerous stuff in the back of a car (except for the theft risk, but let's ignore that for the moment), and there's nothing wrong with having a child in the back of your car - it just can't be the same car at the same time.

This doesn't require training - it just requires thinking.
But a change in culture to understand how dangerous and undesirable widespread casual ownership of guns would help.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The weapon was not originally in the back with the child, it was under the front seat. It slid into the back.
Training could well have helped. It actually does help shore up areas where reliance on reasoning might fail.
However culture is an important culprit, the casual acceptance of weaponry is definitely a factor.
Good luck changing that.

[ 28. April 2016, 09:28: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
This week has seen observance of the massacre at Port Arthur 20 years ago, when some 35 people were killed. The revulsion following that led directly and rapidly to laws in each state and territory very strictly controlling possession of firearms, and setting out how they are to be stored, carried and accounted for; laws passed with overwhelming popular support. I appreciate the US background, with the particular interpretation on the right to bear arms, but do not see how that would prevent registration and storage provisions.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
I was at Port Arthur 20 years ago when this tragedy happened. It was traumatic for all concerned and in many ways today's remembrance ceremonies have dredged all the agony up again (at least for me). I didn't go to today's memorial-it is all still too painful. I have heard it said that we tend to overdo the debriefing and counselling and that many people do better after such events by being taken into the care of loving families and friends rather than professionals.
I am very grateful for Prime Minister John Howard's quick action on gun control in response to the carnage at Port Arthur which has prevented a recurrence. May those who were killed rest in peace and their families know God's love.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
The security guard was not the children's father, but the mother's boyfriend. It was his car and she had borrowed it. He may have said, "Sure," to her request without remembering that he kept his holster and gun under the front seat. He may not have even known that she would be taking her child with her. Yes, he was too casual about his gun, but he can probably be excused for not keeping his car child-safe when he didn't have any.

The Rhoden family in Ohio is being reported as frequently getting in fights. A few months ago the 16 and 20 year-old took a dozen friends and went to someone's house where they beat up the son and father over a demolition derby dispute.

It's beginning to look like a live by the sword, die by the sword, situation to some extent. I can even believe the babies may be better off growing up in families that don't teach criminal pursuits and violence as everyday activities. No one deserves to die the way they did, but when men and women* chose to embrace and admire that sort of life, they should be aware that it doesn't always end in something to brag about on Monday morning.

*Don't think for one minute that the women who died were innocent bystanders. They chose to have sex and children with these men because they thought all the drugs and fights were sexy. The matriarch taught her sons to "stand up for themselves," meaning beat up the little kid who took your toy from day one.

I grew up in the middle of this Appalachian mindset with Hatfields in my class and McCoys across the state line. I had girls trying to pick fights with me just for being in the bathroom combing my hair when they came in. The boys loved to fight and the girls loved the boys who won the fights. Fortunately that was before drugs came along and made it all worse, but there are similarities there with the moonshiners who didn't think the government had the right to tell them what to do on their land and the marijuana growers now.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
In this two year-old shooting his mommy, the news report said it was through the front seat. I guess that means the car is still drivable. That's something anyway. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Training could well have helped. It actually does help shore up areas where reliance on reasoning might fail.
I think my point is that the need to keep them out of the reach of small children is not a unique property of guns - it's something that is shared with other dangerous tools, poisons, small magnets and so on.

In other words, "gun training" is the wrong solution to this problem - what is needed is child-rearing training. (Note also that the story only makes sense if the child wasn't restrained in the back of the car, which is also a significant risk...)
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Its not a given that the child had not been placed in a car seat with suitable restraint. Most child seats have harnesses that undo at a central point and they're made that way so that if there is an accident it is easy for rescuers to get the child out. However, it also makes it simple for many children to work out how to release themselves from their car seat: my own children did that and so we had to work out a reward system (in other words, suitable bribe) to get them to leave the harness secured.

But back to the gun: even if the boyfriend didn't expect there to be a child in his car, what on earth was he doing leaving a weapon in the car without it being locked in the glove compartment? That is simple negligence.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Note also that the story only makes sense if the child wasn't restrained in the back of the car, which is also a significant risk...
Certainly the earlier story from Florida stated that the child unbuckled himself to get the gun which had slid back under the front seat. Since the report I've seen in this case didn't mention where the gun was, it's possible the gun was somewhere accessible to a restrained child. But, you may have seen other accounts than me which clarify things on that regard.

But, even if there was a justifiable reason to have the gun in the car in the first place it should have been secured (either in the glove pocket up front, or in the trunk), and probably unloaded as well. Even if you're not expecting children in the car, that's the sort of thing that should be habit for any gun owner. Just like it's habit to put away the power tools when the job is done, to put the medicines back in the top cabinet, the bleach somewhere safe and so on.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Training could well have helped. It actually does help shore up areas where reliance on reasoning might fail.
I think my point is that the need to keep them out of the reach of small children is not a unique property of guns - it's something that is shared with other dangerous tools, poisons, small magnets and so on.

In other words, "gun training" is the wrong solution to this problem - what is needed is child-rearing training. (Note also that the story only makes sense if the child wasn't restrained in the back of the car, which is also a significant risk...)
Part of proper training is storage to prevent unauthorised and accidental usage. Parenting might also be part of the problem, but the BBC article I read did not give enough detail to make that inference.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I don't see that it's an either/or. You can't exactly say, "Parents should know to keep dangerous things away from their kids, so there's no point in putting warnings on bleach bottles." That's the rough equivalent of saying "Parents should know to keep dangerous things away from their kids, so there's no point in putting that information into a weapon safety training course."

It's rather passing the buck to say that people teaching somebody to be safe can leave parts out, because child safety is something they should be getting from some other source. No, they should be getting it from EVERY source.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
It's amusing to spout about how weapons should be stored, considering that one of the central ideals of the paranoid gun culture is the apparently profound need to be able to protect one's self in an emergency. There is no reconciling sensible gun ownership with the visceral intent of a huge slice of gun culture.

"Go ahead, punk - wait while I recover my ammunition from its separate and secure storage." fits about as well as imagining cowboys riding with lockboxes to avoid unintentional use of their revolvers. Pity that more people are unable to parse that their ideals are entirely fantasy, and that the repercussions of their fear-based macho urges makes their society palpably worse.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't see that it's an either/or.
It isn't either or. In general it is both, but in this specific case, we can see that proper gun care was not followed but I've not seen enough information to know if parenting was also at fault.
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
It's amusing to spout about how weapons should be stored, considering that one of the central ideals of the paranoid gun culture is the apparently profound need to be able to protect one's self in an emergency. There is no reconciling sensible gun ownership with the visceral intent of a huge slice of gun culture.

"Go ahead, punk - wait while I recover my ammunition from its separate and secure storage." fits about as well as imagining cowboys riding with lockboxes to avoid unintentional use of their revolvers. Pity that more people are unable to parse that their ideals are entirely fantasy, and that the repercussions of their fear-based macho urges makes their society palpably worse.
I don't disagree with this as a general statement. In this case, the weapon was part of the owners job. He might well have the mentality you speak of, or he could just be careless. Given that he is a security guard in America, nearly complete lack of training is not an over reaching assumption.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's rather passing the buck to say that people teaching somebody to be safe can leave parts out, because child safety is something they should be getting from some other source. No, they should be getting it from EVERY source.
I agree that "keep guns away from small children" is an entirely sensible thing to put in a gun safety course. Also "keep children away from power tools" in a machinist's class and so on. Probably nobody teaches a "household bleach" safety class.

But I think that looking at this as a failure of gun safety is insufficient. The root cause is that people responsible for the safety of a small child placed that child in an unsafe environment without evaluating the hazards. That, right there, is a parenting failure. Two-year-olds do not evaluate their own hazards reliably - parents or other responsible adults have to do it for them.

Sure - if the gun was stored sensibly, the child wouldn't have been able to get it. In which case, it might have been the drugs, or the medication, or some other dangerous item lying around the car.

There is, I think, one set of circumstances in which this is entirely a gun issue and not a parenting issue: if you imagine that the mother and boyfriend are assiduous at keeping the child away from dangerous items, but didn't consider the handgun to be a dangerous item.

I can have a bathroom in my house with all kinds of dangerous chemicals lying around in it, and that's just fine - I don't have to lock things up on the off-chance that a small child might teleport into my bathroom. If I invite a small child into my house, however, I must make the bathroom safe, because the child is guaranteed to want to use it.

Similarly, if I keep my car locked & parked in a secure location (in the garage, say), then having a gun lying around on its floor, whilst a bad idea, isn't completely horrible. Until I let someone put a child in it.

(A loaded gun sliding around in the bottom of a car in motion could be a safety problem anyway, if there's any chance that the gun could catch on something in its travels around the car floor and get fired. And there probably is such a chance.)
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
And in any case if it's sliding around under the seat, it would lead to just as bad a case of "hold on while I find my gun".
On the other hand if he had the sense to only be relying on it when in a controlled situation, why was it loaded (and off safety)? Actually what is the procedures on that, I guess he needs it chambered when on duty (or at least some people do) should that just be an expense.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
So a two year old shoots his mother dead with a legally held firearm, and you're discussing the finer points of where to put the bleach.

What the fuck is wrong with you people?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So a two year old shoots his mother dead with a legally held firearm, and you're discussing the finer points of where to put the bleach.

What the fuck is wrong with you people?
Rook is correct in that the primary cause is the complete mental attitude Americans have towards guns. But just as mental is thinking they will ever change. If Sandy Hook, Columbine and the rest haven't triggered a change, what the fuck can? So, yes, I could wail and gnash my teeth about the horror of this and all the others that happen regularly and don't make the international news. But what does that help?
I view gun safety training like a needle exchange programme: if the daft bastards are not going to try to curb the madness, maybe this can prevent a few deaths.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
It's amusing to spout about how weapons should be stored, considering that one of the central ideals of the paranoid gun culture is the apparently profound need to be able to protect one's self in an emergency. There is no reconciling sensible gun ownership with the visceral intent of a huge slice of gun culture.

"Go ahead, punk - wait while I recover my ammunition from its separate and secure storage." fits about as well as imagining cowboys riding with lockboxes to avoid unintentional use of their revolvers. Pity that more people are unable to parse that their ideals are entirely fantasy, and that the repercussions of their fear-based macho urges makes their society palpably worse.
As I understand it, it is possible to make guns that will only fire for one person. Some kind of biometrics that identifies whose hand is holding it. This would exactly square that circle -- you could have your gun lying in the middle of the daycare and nobody would be able to shoot anybody because they're not you. But I have also read that the gun lobby is not at all happy with the existence of these guns, let alone making laws requiring them. And certainly the gun nuts aren't rushing out to protect their families and loved ones by purchasing them. Which speaks volumes about the gun nuts, I think.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So a two year old shoots his mother dead with a legally held firearm, and you're discussing the finer points of where to put the bleach.

What the fuck is wrong with you people?
We're trying to look at larger patterns and causes, which is generally a good way to go about solving problems, or at least understanding them and understanding the thinking of the people involved. Rather, say, than looking just at the exigencies of one single incident, which your comment seems to be saying is all you want to do. If you think differences in how one protects one's child from different kinds of hazards, and in particular how one treats guns as not being the hazardous substances that they clearly are, isn't important, I'm not sure that this conversation is for you.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I view gun safety training like a needle exchange programme: if the daft bastards are not going to try to curb the madness, maybe this can prevent a few deaths.
Yes, good analogy. Harm reduction is always a good idea where harm elimination is not possible.
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
If you go down to Pennsylvania, make sure you don't sit in somebody else's seat. They may just shoot you dead on the spot, as the good Lord would want them to.

"This is how people will know you are my disciples: That you argue over trivialities and murder those who annoy you" - The gospel according to the American pro gun lobby
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Rather, say, than looking just at the exigencies of one single incident, which your comment seems to be saying is all you want to do.
This thread is 24 pages long. It's not me who looks at it, one incident at a time, and opines whether if X had happened instead of Y, then no one would have died.

So much death. So much loss. And yet goes on, page after page after page. So, it's a genuine question because I don't know the answer. What the fuck is wrong with you people?
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So much death. So much loss. And yet goes on, page after page after page. So, it's a genuine question because I don't know the answer. What the fuck is wrong with you people?
That's the hilariously impossible part. Imagine you had to move to the US - for whatever narrative-expedient you want to use - and suddenly you find yourself one of "you people". What the fuck do you do?

Wail for pages on a discussion board, apparently, with no real effect. Perhaps also try to be persuasive with your fellow humans, also with no real effect.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I'm over for a few days in July. I shall be deploying my lament from a public platform, and gather the responses in the bar afterwards.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So much death. So much loss. And yet goes on, page after page after page. So, it's a genuine question because I don't know the answer. What the fuck is wrong with you people?
That's the hilariously impossible part. Imagine you had to move to the US - for whatever narrative-expedient you want to use - and suddenly you find yourself one of "you people". What the fuck do you do?

Wail for pages on a discussion board, apparently, with no real effect. Perhaps also try to be persuasive with your fellow humans, also with no real effect.
Was chatting with a couple yesterday that had an intereresting, grassroots idea to impact public opinion. I encouraged them to check out the Ship, because I naively thought You British. People would be encouraged to hear evidence that American folk are trying to come up with creative solutions to a baffling problem, but if they have and they come across this tired " you people" shit, they will doubtless move on to a venue where it is not assumed that they are incurably stupid and evil, based on the place they were born.

You British people's insistance on equating "you people" with those who promote gun culture rather than the victims of it is insufferably smug, and despite the protests of concern, it has a satisfied, if not actively gleeful, quality to it. The death of a two year old becomes an excuse to milk that cutesy " you people" line. Wow, you must be proud. What a score for your nation-- a dead kid became one more reason you get to say, "Everything that isn't British sucks."

The two year old is " you people," asshole. The kids that got mowed down in Colombine and Sandy Hook are " you people," as are the teachers that placed themselves in the paths of shooters to protect kids, and the parents who ran to the media begging for people to pay attention to what was happening to their "you people" kids. The preschoolers I teach who reflexively run away from the classroom windows when a car backfires or someone drops a book too hard, the teachers who have added " hide from the gun man" drills to earthquake and fire drills-- all "you people."

You want to come down to Hunter's Point and tell a grandmother who has seen her grandson shot while walking home that you obviously have more outrage about American gun violence than she does, because she hasn't "done anything about it" yet? That American gun violence somehow impacts you more than it does her and her neighbors? Because as she is American you are going to assume she is part of the problem until she gives a satisfactory recounting of What She's Done About It? And tell her to her face ( as someone I rapidly defriended on FB recently did) that the rest of the world is just waiting for " you people" to get it over with and just kill each other off?

Presumably so that the right sort of people can take over the resulting glut of real estate.


You don't give a fuck about the world we live in, you just get off on feeling superior. Shove your phony ass "concern".

[ 29. April 2016, 17:05: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
I'm a Brit. There's fuck-all I can do about the American obsession with gun-ownership. To be honest there's fuck-all any non-American can do about it. If you'd rather we didn't mention it, then move the thread to DH where it's easier for you to ignore.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Oh so you don't like that I attached one person's attitude to all British opinion? I agree, that is a bullshit thing to do.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
I'm a Brit. There's fuck-all I can do about the American obsession with gun-ownership. To be honest there's fuck-all any non-American can do about it. If you'd rather we didn't mention it, then move the thread to DH where it's easier for you to ignore.
She didn't say don't discuss gun violence, nor even the criticise tone in which it is discussed. She is complaining about painting an entire, varied nation with a single brush.
And though I think the responsibility does indeed carry beyond the 2nd amendment nutters and gun-lobby puppets, the fact that Americans suffer the violence and many also wish change should not be ignored.
But, that might well be too nuanced a concept for you.
May I suggest you kindly fuck off back to writing into the Daily Mail.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I'm specifically complaining that we the You People are fucking dying, and rarely do I see this discussion being approached from that end.

Understand my perspective is as an American educator who has spent a good deal of my career working in extremely low income, gang- saturated areas. It's kind of in my face every day, If it's true of me, then that goes about 100x for the parents I serve. "Just kill each other off?" It's fucking happening right under my nose. I hear those comments and I just go Wolverine.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Well, you've got Australia, who collectively grasped the nettle after one massacre too many. Those people sorted themselves the fuck out.

Or the UK. We people sorted ourselves the fuck out.

This isn't to say that Brits or Aussies are any less violent than Americans. Just that we don't tend to shoot the shit out of each other with legally held guns.

So, again, a genuine question. Why can't you people sort yourselves out?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
So, that is what you would say to the grandmother I mentioned. And thank you for confirming that this is really about preening for you.

Answer RooK's very apt question. If you had to live here, what would you do?

Otherwise the obvious answer I have is Don't You Think We Are Trying To Fucking Figure That Out?

[ 29. April 2016, 17:51: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Actually, you really want to know what I specifically am doing about gun violence in America?

I work in an area with significant gang prescence. I am fairly sure some of my students have "banger" parents. As an ongoing substitute, I am freed from paperwork duties to mostly focus on socialization and conflict resolution. I support the school policy forbidding gun play ( in these schools you have to-- it escalates brutally fast) I explain to the ( mainly) boys involved that we don't do guns because it makes big fights, and that guns make some kids scared and at our school we want kids to feel safe, I kneel down on the playground and seperate kids who are jamming their thumbs in each other's eyes and teach them how to convert their anger to words, I teach them how to negotiate with their peers rather than disputing with them, and when two four year old boys have a five minute argument, without a single blow struck or a single name called, and resolve the problem themselves, I am first on deck to applaud them.

I steer kids toward activities and experiences that encourage community and cooperation, and teach them to walk away from fights rather than escalating them-- that fights have to end some time, and deciding to end a fight is a strong, brave, grown up thing to do. I do this for hours and hours, every fucking day, to the point of exhaustion. I am probably one of the few people on this thread who have figured out a way to actively devote their life to decreasing violence.You?

It is my understanding that UK preschools are beginning to implement a more academically focused curriculum. This will impact a teacher's ability to do what I am describing, so look forward to increased behavior issues and impulse control based conflict in the next decade or so. And as long as this kind of behavior is restricting itself to lower-income, public school dependent areas, look forward to the PTB turning a blind eye while people get closer and closer to killing each orher off, other than glancing down from Mt Olympus to sighingly wonder what is wrong with Those People.

[ 29. April 2016, 18:17: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So, again, a genuine question. Why can't you people sort yourselves out?
Jesus Christ, Doc Tor. You are either astonishingly tone-deaf or you really are insufferably superior. (I now call this "Doc Tor's Bind.")

If you really wanted your ostensible question answered, you could read through the thread to glean some hints as to why "those" people can't sort themselves out. On the off chance that your question is genuine, let me help you.

- The United States is a very big country. You cannot compare the UK to the US meaningfully; it would make more sense to compare Europe to the US.

- Because it is a very big place, with many subcultures, you should know that some of those places within the US are more poor, violent, and badly governed than others.

- Therefore it is analogous to ask: What are you, Doc Tor, personally doing about the state of the roads in rural Poland? I've heard they're just awful, but obviously you Europeans can't sort yourselves out.

- You do not understand the many and ongoing impacts of slavery and segregation in the US.

- You do not understand American mistrust of government, yes, even within their own democracy.

- You are not getting how much some Americans hate taxes, as a subset of mistrust of government.

Perhaps you should do some reading about these subjects, or ask American Shipmates instead of insulting them?

Let me leave you with a final hint: before you air your opinions in the US and then go to a pub to discuss them, you should practice closer to home first. Go to an Orange Lodge, perhaps somewhere near Portadown, and air your views condemning the Orange March on July 12. I'm sure they will receive your enlightenment with gratitude.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
[Tear] ( Plants big wet sloppy soul kiss on Leaf.)

Sorry. Impulse control issues.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Ratchet back the outrage. You're not North Korea or Saudi Arabia or Somalia or Syria. You're somewhere with a functioning democratic government.

So yes. It's your problem, collectively. It's individually, but as you point out, you can't do shit individually. Bullets don't respect your property line. It's collectively that you solve this - but you know all this, so why the fuck are you wasting time on some smug, preening Brit who knows jack shit, and not banging on the doors of your law makers and candidates demanding they stop taking bribes from the NRA and put some legislation in place that means something?

If I thought for a moment me shutting up about this would move this process forward even a fraction of an inch, I'd never mention it again.

But I genuinely don't think you get it. I don't think that you realise how the rest of the world looks on and goes 'WTF America?'

(and on the roads in Poland, the UK, as a net contributor to the EU, pays for infrastructure upgrades in former Soviet bloc countries. So that's what the UK is doing. Paying to fix our shit.)

(Also, the rest of the UK looks at Orange Lodges, and goes 'WTF?' We have our problems. We own those problems.

If you're telling me that the US is a badly governed, deeply divided country, awash with guns, you're not telling me anything I don't know already. What I don't know is how you're planning to fix your shit.)
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Maybe you haven't noticed, but the majority of US Shipmates are gun control advocates, so what makes you so damn certain they are not doing exactly what you are saying they need to do? Fuck, I just mentioned a coffee shop grassroots gun control protest planning, and you act like it never happened. Why are you presuming the largely liberal, politically opinionated segment of America that lands on the Ship hasn't been addressing the issue?

Fuck you. It's hard enough gearing up for battle against our own relatives, community, countrymen without ignorant outsiders blithely claiming what you are strugging to do isn't even taking place. Fucking read some literature about people who are fighting for gun control in America, and then maybe your opinion will have relevance.

And " we don't get it"? Come on. We can't even have a discussion about baked goods around here without some asshole making some snappy "too bad all Americans eat are Twinkies" kind of crack. We don't get how revulsed Europe is by the American gun situation? Leaf's whole post was about how not only do we get it, we have been trying to respond to it every step of the way in the course of this thread. And people like you keep stepping over what we said to say, " Problem not fixed yet, obviously you don't care."


I also note you had fuck all to say about what I do with kids. If you don't think that is ground zero in this fight, you are the one who "doesn't get it."
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Kelly, I was moved to say something about your post about your work with children.

Unfortunately, what sauntered out of the mess of my mind was "fight the good fight", which doesn't seem properly inspired in the circumstances.

I may come back after my Marmite sandwich with a better comment about what you are doing.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Okay. You're right. Most US shippies are gun control advocates. Some of you - especially you, Kelly - are at the coal face. I don't have to have these arguments in my community, because those arguments have already been won. It's easy and painless for me, and anyone else whose country has enacted substantive gun control to point at the US and say 'WTF?'

So what response should I have to the annual slaughter of 13000 Americans? Because if you don't think I should give a single fuck, I'll make a note of that for the next time someone shoots up a school.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's easy and painless for me
DINGDINGDINGDING!!!!

quote:

So what response should I have to the annual slaughter of 13000 Americans? Because if you don't think I should give a single fuck, I'll make a note of that for the next time someone shoots up a school.
Simply addressing things with the above idea in mind, as well as the idea that the people you are addressing are finding it hard and painful, will more than suffice.

Put it another way-- I doubt one of those 13000 Americans was one of your nephews. One of mine was.

[ 29. April 2016, 19:49: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Ratchet back the outrage.
Heal yourself, bitch.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
It's more despair, not outrage. But thank you for playing.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
And it never occurred to you that might cut both ways?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's more despair, not outrage. But thank you for playing.
The Ship is not your mental health professional. Take your despair somewhere appropriate and leave us alone. We're not here to be your fucking emotional blotter. Oh, and you can shove the cutesy sarcasm up your arse also, stoneheart.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
Doc Tor, do you think that we don't feel despair and outrage over it too? Two of those killed by guns in this country were my cousins. That was over 16 years ago and I still have dreams about them.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And it never occurred to you that might cut both ways?
Well, yes. Did it occur to you that people move around the world, and may be live in another country, and people who know them and love them want them to stay safe? I'm guessing it has.

Oh, and mousethief? The bridge called. They're missing a troll.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And it never occurred to you that might cut both ways?
Well, yes. Did it occur to you that people move around the world, and may be live in another country, and people who know them and love them want them to stay safe? I'm guessing it has.

Oh, and mousethief? The bridge called. They're missing a troll.
And you're not available? Don't call me. I'm not trolling an entire nation for the behavior of a minority, stoneheart. That'd be you.

And how do you think your trolling here is keeping anybody safe, fuckwit?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Doc Tor, do you think that we don't feel despair and outrage over it too? Two of those killed by guns in this country were my cousins. That was over 16 years ago and I still have dreams about them.
Yes. Of course you can. There's a reason why this thread is called 'Fucking guns' and not 'Lovely guns'. Because, frankly, fuck them.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Yeah, mt. Go have a cooler or something. I don't think anyone's particularly in the mood.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I don't have to have these arguments in my community, because those arguments have already been won.
no, those arguments were not won because they never truly existed. The history of guns in the UK is very different to the history in America. Australia would be a little closer, but even there the gun was not part of the mythos as much as America.
BTW, the murder rate in the UK did not have a significant decline following the ban of handguns. In fact, it rose slightly with a spike ~ 2002.

Then there is the gun lobby. Despite the majority of its members supporting some form of gun control, the NRA and their puppets have attempted to double-down instead of listen.
And, Doc Tor, what have you done to stem the attempts to dismantle the NHS? The world will be holding you responsible when finally it dies.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I don't have to have these arguments in my community, because those arguments have already been won.
no, those arguments were not won because they never truly existed. The history of guns in the UK is very different to the history in America. Australia would be a little closer, but even there the gun was not part of the mythos as much as America.
BTW, the murder rate in the UK did not have a significant decline following the ban of handguns. In fact, it rose slightly with a spike ~ 2002.

Then there is the gun lobby. Despite the majority of its members supporting some form of gun control, the NRA and their puppets have attempted to double-down instead of listen.
And, Doc Tor, what have you done to stem the attempts to dismantle the NHS? The world will be holding you responsible when finally it dies.
Geez, they're all coming out tonight. The logical fallacies, I mean.

So thanks for saying that Hungerford (where my mum lost a friend) and Dunblane didn't really count, and conflating personal responsibility (what with all the voting and marches and shit) with collective responsibility, which is what I've been advocating all along.

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I'm considering asking the Admins to check to see if someone hasn't hijacked your account as whoever is tying posts from it is displaying a level of intelligence so low as to be dangerous. romanlion, is that you?
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm over for a few days in July. I shall be deploying my lament from a public platform, and gather the responses in the bar afterwards.
Will you be in a red state or a blue state? (Reference maps here.) If you're going to be in a red state, maybe ask some of those folks in the bar about gun control.

Also: "deploy" is an interesting word choice in this context.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Doc Tor--

I'm giving you a prescription:

1) STHU.

2) Grab and eat some calming comfort food.

3) Read the first 10 or so pages of this thread, and pay attention to what we American Shipmates said, so we don't have to repeat ourselves for the umpteenth time.

4. Go for a walk.

5. Go home, and indulge in TV, radio, music, or hand puppets.

6. Sleep, and wake up in a better mindset.

Apply daily, as needed.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'm considering asking the Admins to check to see if someone hasn't hijacked your account as whoever is tying posts from it is displaying a level of intelligence so low as to be dangerous. romanlion, is that you?
(lunges at lilbuddha in another soul kiss attempt.)
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And it never occurred to you that might cut both ways?
Well, yes. Did it occur to you that people move around the world, and may be live in another country, and people who know them and love them want them to stay safe? I'm guessing it has.
Did it occur to you that We the You People care about the safety of our friends and relatives, too? Maybe even some of the same people you consider Your People?

Fuck, do you think actual human beings live over here? Why are you so convinced that gun violence in America is much more of a problem for people living 6000 miles away than the people who actually live here?

I can't imagine generating the kind of gargantuan arrogance necessary to make a statement like that about the residents of another country. And I can be pretty damn arrogant when I want to be.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Is this one is even too much for Hell?

Gunman fatally shoots Pennsylvania churchgoer after fight over seat at Sunday service

I just can't imagine this.

This is a link to the church website: Keystone.

[ 29. April 2016, 23:57: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I can't imagine generating the kind of gargantuan arrogance necessary to make a statement like that about the residents of another country.
I don't know that it has to be put down to arrogance. People make sweeping generalizations for all sorts of reasons.

If someone really thinks all Americans have their heads up their ass on this topic, they ought to admire how well organized we are, getting 300,000,000+ people to all think the same thing.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yeah, mt. Go have a cooler or something. I don't think anyone's particularly in the mood.
You are stone deaf, stoneheart, if you aren't hearing plainly what they're not in the mood for. You're playing it up. Probably wanking off under the table while you read the posts telling you to shut up. You get off on it.

[ 30. April 2016, 00:54: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
If someone really thinks all Americans have their heads up their ass on this topic, they ought to admire how well organized we are, getting 300,000,000+ people to all think the same thing.
That is a really admirable feat. Of course, we Brits don't tend to admire that sort of thing since we have managed so well to get a similar number of our fellow Europeans to think the same way. I also know someone who has a well trained herd of cats, and you should see the synchronised aerobatics of his pigs.

[ 30. April 2016, 00:58: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But I have also read that the gun lobby is not at all happy with the existence of these guns, let alone making laws requiring them. And certainly the gun nuts aren't rushing out to protect their families and loved ones by purchasing them. Which speaks volumes about the gun nuts, I think.
I've heard that, too, and the argument makes sense to me, if you accept the premise (which is the "I need a gun to defend myself against burglars / terrorists / the NSA / whoever" thing).

The argument is that palm print sensors or whatever are designed to fail safe (as they have to be - otherwise they're pointless). If you don't get a positive id, you don't get a bang. This is entirely appropriate for most kinds of locks in most kinds of situations, because in most situations, the job of the lock is to prevent access to the thing that's locked up, and there's no significant downside to having to retry the unlock process.

If you actually "need" your gun, and your need for it is such that you have to have it available, rather than locked in the safe unloaded etc. ('cause if it was unloaded and in the safe, the fancy palm print sensor doesn't buy yo much extra safety - it's safe anyway), then you think you need it immediately. You are working under the assumption that attackers are going to come crashing through your front door, and you have seconds to gain access to your weapon.

Under those conditions, what you want is a simple mechanism that goes bang when you point it. A device that might fail (because you're not holding it quite right, or because you're sweating too much, or...) is worse than not having a gun at all.

Now, I don't accept the premise. I don't keep a loaded gun by my bed (in fact, I don't keep any kind of gun anywhere). But if I did accept the premise - if I did think that I needed to have a gun readily accessible to protect myself and my family - then there's no way I'd consider equipping that gun with any kind of biometric lock, because there's no way I could guarantee that it would work when I needed it.

Because if I have decided that I need to have an easily-accessible gun for my family's safety, then I have already decided that the risk of a home invasion is greater than the risk of a child getting hold of the gun. We all know that statistically this is the opposite of true, but apparently I've decided that I'm not like those statistics. And if I've already decided that I'm more likely to be defending myself against a home invasion than having a child find my gun, I'm not going to make my gun less effective because there's a small chance that a child might find it.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
I don't the the biometric lock idea is meant to appeal to gun nuts with paranoid delusions of threat and effectiveness. I think it's meant to be reasonable enough compromise to be what's legally allowed to be sold to civilians, instead of the seemingly unacceptable extremes of either the current bullet-o-rama or total bans.

"Reasonable enough" being it's own laughable comment on humanity.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
RooK, LC, I see what you're saying. Yeah, reasonableness is not really on the table is it. Sigh.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Doc Tor, you are ranting at a group of individuals for being part a nation with problems. You'll find plenty of opportunities for that all over.

Why not rant at the inhabitants of the UK next time a child slips through the child protection system. Or rant at a group of African immigrants you have access to next news report you see about rape in the DRC. Or rant at a group of Gay men next time you hear about an HIV transmission to a young vulnerable man without a condom.

And your mum's friend? Your mum and her community should have been part of organizing gun control earlier. (By the way the UK was not even remotely like the US in terms of gun control before Hungerford anyway so it's a daft argument). Don't expect sympathy from anyone here. What was wrong with her?

What the fuck is wrong with YOU?
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is this one is even too much for Hell?

Gunman fatally shoots Pennsylvania churchgoer after fight over seat at Sunday service

I just can't imagine this.

This is a link to the church website: Keystone.
quote:
from the article: Storms told police that he was hoping to defuse the situation by showing a gun, which, according to court documents, he's done in the past.
Yes, I always find the sight of a gun very calming.

The whole church makes me mad. There is absolutely no excuse for special assigned seats for special people in a Christian church.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I just can't imagine this. . . . The whole church makes me mad. There is absolutely no excuse for special assigned seats for special people in a Christian church.
Or for this kind of language in church:

quote:
He yelled "don't f---ing touch me" after a church member tapped him on the shoulders to let him know he was in someone else's seat.

 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I can't imagine generating the kind of gargantuan arrogance necessary to make a statement like that about the residents of another country.
I don't know that it has to be put down to arrogance. People make sweeping generalizations for all sorts of reasons.

If someone really thinks all Americans have their heads up their ass on this topic, they ought to admire how well organized we are, getting 300,000,000+ people to all think the same thing.
"Sweeping generalizations" are one thing. That was not what I was talking about. The gleeful "what the fuck is wrong with you?" Game that Doc (and others) are playing is what I was referring to. Repeatedly posting heartbreaking national tragedies just to gloat over them. Maybe " arrogant" is too kind a word, come to think of it.

Even more directly, I was responding to the idea that the accusatory rants were justified because British folk "might have friends and relatives here." Again, maybe there just isn't a satisfactory adjective in existence. Unless "WTFness" is a word.

Wow, you're right, dude, sorry. We Americans have no idea what it is like to have friends and relatives who live in a terrifying place like America.

I mean, after my dumbass nephew E. shot himself and his "connected" girlfriend, his mom had to bug out her entire family to Assmunch, Solano County and hide for a year and a half to avoid the threatened chain reaction that might follow this event, but, you know, they aren't
British. They are You People. They no doubt deserve whatever they experienced because they were crass enough to be born here.

Yeah, give me an adjective for that one.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
So, you know, I’m not telling you how you should react. Getting angry, screaming and crying is what normal, decent people do when presented with such a litany of disasters. I have to read each and every one of these, check the links, read more.

This is not a natural disaster. This is not a disease for which there is no cure. This is not a tornado, or an earthquake, or a flood. These are preventable deaths. And, no matter what the likes of mousethief or Kelly say, reading these little snippets of tragedy every few days – posted mainly by US shipmates, because only the really awful ones turn up in the UK press – doesn’t give me a callus where my feelings should be. Quite the opposite.

And when some of you here start on comparing how to hide guns from kids in the same way you would the household cleaning agents, you (individually – because apparently many more of you have difficulty separating the individual you from the collective you) sound fucking nuts. Sorry and all, but you sound absolutely fucking nuts.

If I never had to read another report of a stupid, wicked death perpetrated by some stupid and/or wicked person, then that would be great. But they keep on happening, and apparently there’s nothing that can be done to stop them. The USA is in thrall to its past, and enough of your fellow citizens think that 13000 deaths a year is a price worth paying for the freedom of gun ownership.

If you want nothing but sympathy, we have threads for that, even in Hell. This is not one of them. The people of America are not Princess Peach, trapped in the castle, waiting for Mario to rescue them. You (collectively) have to power to fix this – and you fucking well know it.

Yes, I care. Uselessly, pointlessly, impotently, inaccurately, inadvisedly. I don’t give a single fuck what you think about that. But at least it’s not a shrug. You’re all worth more than that.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If you actually "need" your gun, and your need for it is such that you have to have it available, rather than locked in the safe unloaded etc. ('cause if it was unloaded and in the safe, the fancy palm print sensor doesn't buy yo much extra safety - it's safe anyway), then you think you need it immediately.
True, but for some gun owners a secure lock might allow them to keep their weapon somewhere slightly more accessible, offsetting the second or so it takes to unlock it.

The Identilock looks like an interesting option.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I'd prefer a shrug to this kind of abuse. "I wouldn't hit you if I didn't love you" is of small comfort.

Kelly, [Overused]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I don't have to have these arguments in my community, because those arguments have already been won.
no, those arguments were not won because they never truly existed. The history of guns in the UK is very different to the history in America. Australia would be a little closer, but even there the gun was not part of the mythos as much as America.
BTW, the murder rate in the UK did not have a significant decline following the ban of handguns. In fact, it rose slightly with a spike ~ 2002.

Then there is the gun lobby. Despite the majority of its members supporting some form of gun control, the NRA and their puppets have attempted to double-down instead of listen.
And, Doc Tor, what have you done to stem the attempts to dismantle the NHS? The world will be holding you responsible when finally it dies.
Just been reading about that, and exactly-- my reaction to reading that is outrage
On behalf of y'all Britmates-- sure, I say, " Fight for it!" But I can't wrap my mind around the idea of referencing some story about a British person dying due to lack of insurance and announcing, " and you people are just letting it happen."

And the main reason I wouldn't do that is that I haven't been living in a sensory deprivation unit with strictly censored media input, and I am fully aware plenty of British folk are screaming the house down about it. And if NHS is dismantled-- truly, God forbid-- I certainly wouldn't fold my arms and announce that the screaming never happened, otherwise they would have won the fight.

And if I was enough of an asshole to do that, Doc, tell me half the board wouldn't be pounding a path to Hell just to tell me what a monster I was. And I doubt any British person would translate rhetoric like that as deep concern. You'd think I was flipping you off, and you'd have every right to think that.

And remind me of Hell ethics-- if someone flips you off in Hell, are you required to humbly bow your head and not respond, so that you don't hurt their little feelings by implying that they might be acting like an asshole?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I refer you to the part where I don't give a shit about how you translate my posts. You (individually) seem to want to interpret them in the worst possible light, so knock yourself out. If you (or anyone else) wants to read it as abuse, I can't stop you. You're wrong, you're being an arsehole, yet you expect me to fold. Fuck that.

And yes, if we (collectively) let the NHS fall, it will be our (collective) fault. There'll be nothing that you (individually or collectively) can say that'll be worse than what I'll be saying. We'll deserve everything we get.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I'm not the only one saying you're getting it wrong, dude. In fact in the last couple pages, a few Britmates and one or two Canadians have chimed in to that effect.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
Doc Tor, you seem to be under the belief that there are no Americans working to correct our serious gun problem, that all of us are simply wringing our hands and saying "oh dear". This is simply not the case.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

If you want nothing but sympathy, we have threads for that, even in Hell. This is not one of them. The people of America are not Princess Peach, trapped in the castle, waiting for Mario to rescue them. You (collectively) have to power to fix this – and you fucking well know it.
You are not typically this stupid, have you had a fall recently?
Yes, anyone who is not actively working for change is at least partially responsible for its lack. Apathy, feeling powerless, being in a constituency which is not representative of one's view, etc. And the same motherfucking thing is true in the UK, where people manage to murder each just fine without guns. What are you doing to stem the violence? What are you doing to stem the erosion of the NHS? What are you doing to educate people to stop voting against their own interests? What are you doing to end the fucking safe seat system that is choking the country?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
And where do I give that impression? I've acknowledged the efforts that people are making - some of those people are here. It's a struggle. You're on the side of right. You know it. I know it.

What else am I supposed to say here? That I enjoy reading this crap? That I shake my head and give a little chuckle, "Oh those wacky Americans and their gun-loving ways"? Not happening.

(x-posted)

[ 30. April 2016, 17:34: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
He's been told that. Several times. By Brits and Americans alike. It doesn't fit his schema, so he ignores it.

The fact of the matter is, on a rhetorical and awareness level, progress is being made. The frantic way the NRA and open carry folk are fighting back is evidence of that. In the same way the hysterical behavior of Southern white supremists in the 60's signaled the fact that the Jim Crow stronghold had developed enough tiny fissures to come crashing down. The GOP is auto- cannibalizing because there is no longer solid unity on issues like gun control ( among other things.)

In terms of cultural disparity, America is colossal. Change in America is usually glacial, in speed and in relentlessness. I believe gun control changes are coming, but I understand the process, and I understand those changes are going to happen step by excruciating step.

So fuck contemptuous despair- mongering. If I am going to "fight the good fight" as Penny put it, I need all the faith and patience I can muster.

[ 30. April 2016, 17:35: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

And yes, if we (collectively) let the NHS fall, it will be our (collective) fault. There'll be nothing that you (individually or collectively) can say that'll be worse than what I'll be saying. We'll deserve everything we get.
Yes, it will be. And if you do not understand why it is very likely to happen with the tacit support of the affected, then trying to educate you as to the American gun problem is futile.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Doc Tor, does it ever occur to you, I mean like EVER, that if this many people are reacting to what you say in a certain way -- people from multiple different countries with very different social climates -- then maybe you ought to stop and take stock and see if what you're saying is really what you mean to be saying? If you're really coming across as saying what you want to be heard as saying?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

And yes, if we (collectively) let the NHS fall, it will be our (collective) fault. There'll be nothing that you (individually or collectively) can say that'll be worse than what I'll be saying. We'll deserve everything we get.
Yes, it will be. And if you do not understand why it is very likely to happen with the tacit support of the affected, then trying to educate you as to the American gun problem is futile.
I do understand that's exactly the problem. "The tacit support of the affected" is exactly the problem.

So given that I understand that, have you anything else here?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

And when some of you here start on comparing how to hide guns from kids in the same way you would the household cleaning agents, you (individually – because apparently many more of you have difficulty separating the individual you from the collective you) sound fucking nuts. Sorry and all, but you sound absolutely fucking nuts.
Why so?

Look, we get that you don't think people should have guns. I understand that. For you, there's no reasonable safety precaution to take with a gun in the house, because there's no valid reason to have the gun in the house, and the only reasonable, safe approach is to get rid of it.

But the fact is that there are millions of Americans who don't agree with that, and we need to deal with the world that exists, rather than the one that we'd like to exist. Just repeating "you're fucking nuts" like you've seen a squirrel who really likes his dinner doesn't get you anywhere.

So here are some things that everyone can agree to, whether they're hard-core gun-banners, second amendment absolutists, or anywhere in between:

Guns are dangerous tools.

Many Americans own handguns, and keep them in their houses.

Small children should be kept apart from guns.

In this sense, keeping the kids away from guns is exactly the same as keeping them away from Grandma's chewable cherry-flavour acetaminophen (the one in the easy-open old-person bottle labelled "not for households with children"), the household bleach or the bandsaw. There are things in your house / car / environment that are dangerous, and you are responsible for a person who does not have the hazard analysis skills necessary to recognize and avoid those dangers. So you have to keep them apart.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And where do I give that impression? I've acknowledged the efforts that people are making - some of those people are here. It's a struggle. You're on the side of right. You know it. I know it.

What else am I supposed to say here? That I enjoy reading this crap? That I shake my head and give a little chuckle, "Oh those wacky Americans and their gun-loving ways"? Not happening.

(x-posted)
Well, since you're taking suggestions, how about posting ... nothing?

I think that would be preferable to pretending that "What the fuck is wrong with you people?" and "Why can't you people sort yourselves out?" are "genuine questions".
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
In this sense, keeping the kids away from guns is exactly the same as keeping them away from Grandma's chewable cherry-flavour acetaminophen (the one in the easy-open old-person bottle labelled "not for households with children"), the household bleach or the bandsaw. There are things in your house / car / environment that are dangerous, and you are responsible for a person who does not have the hazard analysis skills necessary to recognize and avoid those dangers. So you have to keep them apart.
And yes. I agree that medicines, household cleaning agents and power tools need to be separated from children. I made sure, when the Torlets were younger, not only this was done, but that they were educated about their dangers if they were to ever come across something like that that wasn't stored correctly.

And yes, if you're going to have guns around the house, there are similar rules that you can apply.

However. 66 deaths a year from household chemicals. 33 from power tools. 13,000 deaths a year from guns. Qualitatively, then, guns belong in a different category to 'tools'. Guns don't unblock a sink. Guns don't saw wood. Guns are explicitly made to kill. They don't need similar rules: they need an entirely different set of rules that match the threat they pose to the owner, their family, and anyone else that might come into contact with the gun.

If you treat a gun like you treat bleach, then you're doing it wrong.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Well, since you're taking suggestions, how about posting ... nothing?
Just as long as everyone else joins in. I haven't exactly enjoyed twenty-odd pages of links to stories of dead people. I can do without twenty more.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

So given that I understand that, have you anything else here?
If you have the capacity to understand the why of it, then you can begin to understand part of the American gun problem. Re-read Leaf's post and perhaps you can begin to understand other factors. I have hopes for you yet, overly optimistic though they may be.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Well, since you're taking suggestions, how about posting ... nothing?
Just as long as everyone else joins in. I haven't exactly enjoyed twenty-odd pages of links to stories of dead people. I can do without twenty more.
If it's wearing on you that much, you might consider finding something else to do with your free time.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Doc Tor, does it ever occur to you, I mean like EVER, that if this many people are reacting to what you say in a certain way -- people from multiple different countries with very different social climates -- then maybe you ought to stop and take stock and see if what you're saying is really what you mean to be saying? If you're really coming across as saying what you want to be heard as saying?
The crickets say, "No. He has never engaged in self-introspection about the things he posts that make other people react strongly."
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

So given that I understand that, have you anything else here?
If you have the capacity to understand the why of it, then you can begin to understand part of the American gun problem. Re-read Leaf's post and perhaps you can begin to understand other factors. I have hopes for you yet, overly optimistic though they may be.
Yes. There are other factors. I'm reasonably well-read, so I do understand that, in part at least.

What strikes me is how close your Purg-sounding acknowledgement that the current status quo of gun control requires the "tacit approval of the affected" is to my own view, however it might be expressed.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Perhaps due to my multiple certifications as a Horrible Person™, I find myself tending to interpret comments about "you people" and "what the fuck is wrong with you" as amusingly flame-engulfed prods to tender areas. Because there's a painful kernel of truth. Because humans are, on the whole, stupid and shitty, and very slow to improve as a general class.

So my own personal "ouch" coupled with "touché" involves accepting the burning kernel, then proceeding with whatever direction seems to have the most utility. In the depressing morass of apparent futility, struggling is at least better than giving up.

But, it seems to me that Doc Tor has singed the participants here more than the general threshold for discussion. Thereby rightly getting proportional heat reflected back at him. His unwillingness to acknowledge how Horrible™ he has been seems like a missed opportunity to me, or a sign that he's gotten defensive beyond his own ability to conduct discourse.

Fuck I love Hell. The visceral meta-truths gush out of us with most of us oblivious to them.

Please, do go on everybody.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

What strikes me is how close your Purg-sounding acknowledgement that the current status quo of gun control requires the "tacit approval of the affected" is to my own view, however it might be expressed.
See that bit I left in bold? Yeah? That bit is important.
So, kinda what Rook said, in a less long-winded way.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
(To lilbuddha)... Because you didn't actually say anything about "the tacit approval of the affected" you said people who aren't actively working for change are contributing to the problem. The reason nobody swooped in to challenge that is that there is nothing to challenge-- it is simply true. American gun control advocates would cheer you and thank you for saying it.

What Doc is saying is very different.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you treat a gun like you treat bleach, then you're doing it wrong.
You know what, as far as I was concerned that appeared to be exactly what people were saying when the subject of bleach and power tools came up. The vast majority of people consider it reasonable and sensible to store dangerous chemicals in a manner that prevents children accessing them - even to the extent of inconveniencing those who don't have children by putting "child proof" caps on the bottles (in scare quotes because, generally, children can still open them).

The point being made was that there is a small, highly vocal and politically influential group in the US who seem to be saying that their right to carry a gun everywhere they go means that even treating a gun like bleach is too restrictive of their rights. Compared to that treating a gun like bleach, by say storing it somewhere out of reach, would at least be an improvement on leaving them sliding around the floor of the car.

Of course, everyone here is calling for more than that. To treat guns as something that is a) more dangerous than bleach and b) of less use in the home. And, therefore be even more restrictive than treating them like bleach.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

What strikes me is how close your Purg-sounding acknowledgement that the current status quo of gun control requires the "tacit approval of the affected" is to my own view, however it might be expressed.
See that bit I left in bold? Yeah? That bit is important.
So, kinda what Rook said, in a less long-winded way.
Have you never looked at the turkey-like masses voting for Christmas, if they could bother their arses voting at all, and thought "What the fuck is wrong with you people?"

Of course you have. Even if you're a living saint (and you're not: you're as priggish and self-righteous and stubborn as the rest of us) you'll have thought that. Even if you repented straight afterwards, you know you'll do it again when the next round of elections turns up and the candidates supported by the gun lobby spiel out their rhetoric and get enough stupid people to vote for them to claim their position, relying on the rest not to turn out.

You can dress it up as "tacit approval of the affected". May be you wouldn't go up to them and actually say "WTF dude? You didn't vote! This is your fault!" But you'll be thinking it.

Enough people in the UK voted for the Tories (about 36% of the electorate) to scrape them a majority. I'm thinking it all the fucking time.

If it's my tone you're actually arguing with, go and open yet another gun thread in Purg. I'll be civil and make all the same points without the industrial language. But while you're posting in a thread called "Fucking guns" in Hell... Guns. Their supporters. Their tacit enablers. Fuck 'em.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
May be you wouldn't go up to them and actually say "WTF dude? You didn't vote! This is your fault!" But you'll be thinking it.
Oh no, I say that. But I say it to the responsible groups, not to "you people."
I'm far from a nice person, but that much of a tool I'm not.
quote:

Enough people in the UK voted for the Tories (about 36% of the electorate) to scrape them a majority. I'm thinking it all the fucking time.
If all you are doing is thinking about it, you are part of the problem.
quote:

If it's my tone you're actually arguing with,
For now I'm going to stay right here, aiming my boot at your backside, hoping to kick your grey matter up out of your arse and back to where it belongs.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Jesus, are you desperate enough to paint the likes of lilbuddha as delicate? She's complaining about your accuracy, lack of, not your fucking tone.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So, you know, I’m not telling you how you should react. Getting angry, screaming and crying is what normal, decent people do when presented with such a litany of disasters. I have to read each and every one of these, check the links, read more.
...so...because your hostly duties require you to do all that, you're punishing American Shipmates for living in a country with a serious problem?

I've never envied the hosts having to read all our posts. I'm grateful for your and their work. And when a thread is about a difficult topic, it must be very stressful, sometimes traumatic, for you.

But kicking us, over and over, when we've explained, over and over, how and why things are, how people have tried to changed things and how difficult it is,...only hurts everyone, including you, I think.

It's one thing to be Hellish. It's another to go after American Shipmates and our country, repeatedly, despite our explanations and displayed feelings.

Maybe you can find another way to cope with the stress? 'Cause this sure isn't working.
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I've never envied the hosts having to read all our posts. I'm grateful for your and their work. And when a thread is about a difficult topic, it must be very stressful, sometimes traumatic, for you.

But kicking us, over and over, when we've explained, over and over, how and why things are, how people have tried to changed things and how difficult it is,...only hurts everyone, including you, I think.

It's one thing to be Hellish. It's another to go after American Shipmates and our country, repeatedly, despite our explanations and displayed feelings.
All I'm saying is that there's a reason why I've stayed out of this exchange up 'till now. I've protested and rallied against gun violence. I've voted in politicos who pledged to help pass sensible laws. I've even posted a few things on this here board, hoping that, just maybe, it might paint a bit of a picture to those wondering why Us Peoples can't get our backwards hick asses in gear.

Fuck it. We People tried. The Enlightened aren't listening. May as well keep working here at home.

[ 01. May 2016, 05:36: Message edited by: Ariston ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
It'a all very well saying the UK has fixed it, but we're just lucky the quirks in our history didn't incorporate the rights to bear arms. We've got a pretty horrible inner city gang culture and it's not going away.

I have worked one-to-one in the community with a connected teenager. Two other students from the same area and involved in the same gang are currently inside, one for 18 years for ABH probably instigated by this connected youngster's brother and cousin. The cousin is also currently incarcerated at Her Majesty's Pleasure. There's a reason we're required to carry personal alarms working in the community.

[tangent]
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Enough people in the UK voted for the Tories (about 36% of the electorate) to scrape them a majority.
Just because this irritates me so much, it was 24% of the electorate voted for the Tories, 36% of the 66% that voted. More people didn't bother to turn out than voted the NHS destroying bastards in. Bloody difficult not to enable in a broken election system.

38 Degrees had a big campaign before the last general election to get more people to vote as they had a theory that the additional 34% would make a difference. But you can see how well that worked. It won't get any better as the most recent changes to the voter registration system has made it harder to register and persuade people to vote.

(I did turn out and, no, I didn't vote for the Conservatives. It didn't make a spit of difference. My local Tory MP was voted in with an increased majority.)[/tangent]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If it's my tone you're actually arguing with
"You people" is a phrase often used by racists. I expect many of them think it's simply a question of tone when they get called on it.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It'a all very well saying the UK has fixed it, but we're just lucky the quirks in our history didn't incorporate the rights to bear arms.
IMO, it is not simply that. The UK was settled well before the advent of mass produced, easily available firearms. Taming the wilderness, fighting hostile natives and outlaws is someone else's mythos.* A mythos used by gun manufacturers and 2nd amendment masturbators. Neither the real or imagined history in the UK is tied to the gun in anywhere close to the same way.


*Myth not history as most Americans moved from settled cities in the east to settled cities in the west. The pioneer was always the minority exception.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If it's my tone you're actually arguing with
"You people" is a phrase often used by racists. I expect many of them think it's simply a question of tone when they get called on it.
Definitely invokes that feeling for me.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
If "you people," is the militant NRA members, then I'm with Doc Tor. I think what he might be saying is a little bit like what I tried to say in the POTUS thread a few days ago.

He's voicing some of the frustration I have. It looks like my best bet for the next president is going to be Hillary Clinton and I wanted something or someone more. I want some sweeping changes. I don't want a president with a historically hawkish attitude to our military presence in the middle east who will dawdle around saying we can't pull out yet or our past thirty years will be for nothing.

I want someone who will say, "Our past thirty years in the middle east have not brought the stabilization we hoped for, it's just lost us a lot of soldiers and made us a passel of violent enemies -- we're bringing all our troops home today."

And I don't want creeping, snail paced gun control measures that say we're banning assault weapons but letting you keep all your hand guns with which you do the most killing and we're going to let every yahoo with an IQ of 85 have guns but all the mentally ill people will have their greatest fears realized when their psychiatrists start reporting their confidences to the government -- not to mention their illnesses reported to the yahoos with IQ's of 85 who run the gun shows.

I want someone who will make the changes Australia made and tell the NRA, it's over, get used to it.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
If "you people," is the militant NRA members, then I'm with Doc Tor.
Can't help thinking that "What the fuck is wrong with militant NRA members" would have been a clearer way of doing that. That and avoiding the followup comments on collective responsibility.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
When the NHS gets sold to the government's preferred bidder, it won't be the 'idiots who voted Tory' who'll be to blame. It'll be us people.

So while you all (individually) have been bloviating and trying to tell me how I ought to express myself and policing my tone and educating me on the correct way to feel about 13000 largely preventable deaths by guns, another, what, 70 people have died?

Am I a terrible person? Yes. Of course I am. I channel most of that into my work which I'm inexplicably paid for. And it's not any particular surprise that I find myself hosting here in Hell. Maybe you've got so used to Hell-lite that what actual Hell looks like frightens you. Feel free never to visit here again, and you can take a razor blade to the Psalms while you're at it.

You can now return to your hankie-wringing over a litany of death and loss and misery, while I work away in the background, checking every link for NSFW images of people with gunshot wounds.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
When the NHS gets sold to the government's preferred bidder, it won't be the 'idiots who voted Tory' who'll be to blame. It'll be us people.
In that (God forbid) scenario I'll blame Jeremy Cunt and the Fucking Tories.

I'll regret, deeply, the idiocy that meant so many Brits believed the lies the Tories told us at election time. What's the point of blaming those who campaigned tirelessly for a different outcome, even if they were ultimately unsuccessful? That's like blaming the BEF for not holding up the German advance and retreating to Dunkirk. We don't do that, we remember their courage and sacrifice, and celebrate the quite extraordinary feat of getting so many off the beaches. I only hope that if we lose the Battle for the NHS we'll treat the defeated warriors who fought so hard to save it as heroes and not clump them in with the Tory Bastards.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So while you all (individually) have been bloviating and trying to tell me how I ought to express myself and policing my tone and educating me on the correct way to feel about 13000 largely preventable deaths by guns, another, what, 70 people have died?.... Maybe you've got so used to Hell-lite that what actual Hell looks like frightens you. Feel free never to visit here again, and you can take a razor blade to the Psalms while you're at it.
So the red herrings have been a random scattering of;
I don't see anyone buying any of it. Although I guess deano and evensong haven't shown up yet.

Could it be that in fact you've been acting like a cunt? Sure it's hell, that means you don't get admin attention for it, it doesn't mean you get a free pass and no-one should call you on it. Isn't that what you people normally say in these situations?

Look at RooK's post. If you are going to take the provocative, hard-as-nails hellish approach at least own it and drop the pathetic flailing justifications.

What the fuck is wrong with you?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Maybe you've got so used to Hell-lite that what actual Hell looks like frightens you.
[Killing me] What a stunning piece of ironic self-depreciation. Bravo! I mean, to take the piss out of oneself in such a subtle, but clear way is Art.
Right? You meant it that way? I mean, because you couldn't be that stupid, right? Unless....romanlion? deano?!
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So while you all (individually) have been bloviating and trying to tell me how I ought to express myself and policing my tone and educating me on the correct way to feel about 13000 largely preventable deaths by guns, another, what, 70 people have died?
Yes, your douchebaggery is excused because you really care so much more than we do.
quote:
You can now return to your hankie-wringing over a litany of death and loss and misery, while I work away in the background, checking every link for NSFW images of people with gunshot wounds.
Yes, you're doing the Lord's work, bravely clicking on things. Have you really found any NSFW images of people with gunshot wounds, or is this just another extension of your pretend suffering under your burden as a host?
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
doing the Lord's work, bravely clicking on things.
I dislike having our lovely, "Fucking guns," thread turned into a, "Doc Tor's a douchbag," thread -- but that is a fine phrase. I'm tempted to make it my signature.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
Why, thank you.

With any luck, Doc Tor's present fit will soon pass and we'll be relieved of his caring too much, at least for another six months.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The UK really isn't that peachy: we had a 14 year old shot today in Suffolk. Two teenagers have been arrested. There's a little wrinkle in UK law that allows children as young as 5 to have shotgun licences so guns aren't the completely eradicated danger some are suggesting. (And that's before you start looking at illegal guns or the 7000 knives handed in during a knife amnesty just across the border from Bury St Edmunds in Essex.)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Fortunately we don't require people to have sorted everything out before they comment. Otherwise these boards would be very quite.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Quite what?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
Doc Tor isn't the only douche-bag here.

Americans have the right to own guns. That will never change. Come and get mine whenever you feel froggy.

Bad things happen. Blame God, he set all this shit into motion.

Get over it and close this pitiful fucking excuse for a thread already.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Doc Tor isn't the only douche-bag here.
There's no reason to sulk, romanlion - you haven't posted on this thread for a while, so it's only natural that people will overlook you.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Doc Tor isn't the only douche-bag here.

Americans have the right to own guns. That will never change. Come and get mine whenever you feel froggy.
Ahhh, in'e cute when he gets all frocious?
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Quite what?
Quite froggy, I guess.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

Bad things happen. Blame God, he set all this shit into motion.
That's got the feel of a sig about it to me.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Doc Tor, you seem to be under the belief that there are no Americans working to correct our serious gun problem
Personally, I'm under the belief that there are none effectively working to correct your serious gun problem.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Also, bollocks to the whole "well, that's American history and culture, right to bear arms is a thing" notion.

Because a few generations ago the Supreme Court of the same United States did not think there was any right for individuals to go around with guns. A few generations ago, the NRA was entirely in favour of gun regulation.

The mess you're living with has only been inevitable in your own lifetimes. It's not a historical truth, any more than "In God We Trust" is a historical truth or "one nation under God" is a historical truth. Where you've ended up now is the result of an orchestrated steering of your country. Anyone who tells you that this is just how America has always been is lying through their teeth.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Doc Tor, you seem to be under the belief that there are no Americans working to correct our serious gun problem
Personally, I'm under the belief that there are none effectively working to correct your serious gun problem.
Well, duh, if they'd been effective* we'd not be having this conversation. If by that comment you mean that you are denigrating the efforts of those trying as weak, then I think you are wrong. I know some of them who lobby their representatives, protest, educate, etc. Hasn't worked yet, but they are doing everything legal to try.


* Don't you lot have a day celebrating inefectivity?
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Also, bollocks to the whole "well, that's American history and culture, right to bear arms is a thing" notion.
I'm no expert on American history, but it didn't take long to find that not that simple. The question has been a question from fairly early on.
quote:

Because a few generations ago the Supreme Court of the same United States did not think there was any right for individuals to go around with guns. A few generations ago, the NRA was entirely in favour of gun regulation.

The mess you're living with has only been inevitable in your own lifetimes.
Let's pretend that this is accurate (though it isn't), that is how we humans work. What "is" in our lifetimes, and typically those of our parents, has always been.
But back to the inaccuracy. The mythology or the American Pioneer began before the real events ended. Buffalo Bill, and Wild Bill Hickok, amongst many others, were in plays fictionalising their own lives. The "romance" of the pioneer and the taming of the continent has been part of the American Mythos for a long time.
And the conflict between individual rights and government control is interwoven throughout American history.


quote:

Anyone who tells you that this is just how America has always been is lying through their teeth.
Even if your earlier presumptions were more accurate, it would be at most to assume that those you are criticising were ignorant or delusional. Accusing them of lying is either massively ignorant or you are jealous of the attention Doc Tor is getting.

BTW, not that long ago, I was in the same place Doc Tor is, wondering WTF is wrong with America. But a little time spent among the natives and a little research shows it is not completely simple.
Not that this absolves the situation, it doesn't.

[ 02. May 2016, 15:00: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Doc Tor isn't the only douche-bag here.

Americans have the right to own guns. That will never change. Come and get mine whenever you feel froggy.

Are you implying you'd be willing to kill someone if they tried to disarm you? That's my definition of a hateful cunt.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Doc Tor isn't the only douche-bag here.

Americans have the right to own guns. That will never change. Come and get mine whenever you feel froggy.

Are you implying you'd be willing to kill someone if they tried to disarm you? That's my definition of a hateful cunt.
Karl, you are a very poor judge of character. He's an hateful cunt even if that is not what he is implying.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The mythology or the American Pioneer began before the real events ended. Buffalo Bill, and Wild Bill Hickok, amongst many others, were in plays fictionalising their own lives. The "romance" of the pioneer and the taming of the continent has been part of the American Mythos for a long time.
On the other hand, the mythology of the "wild west" as portrayed in Western movies (which I guess is a fairly important part of the development of the myth as currently understood) is quite informative in relation to guns. In the Western movie, what happens when the cow boys ride into town for their night off? They all stop off at the office of the Sheriff/Marshall and hand in their guns, and collect them again as they leave town. Or, if it's one of those "Marshall restores order to lawless town" movies, that's the first law the Marshall enacts. It's those who don't hand in their guns before walking into the saloon who are the trouble makers.

Yet, way back on this thread there was a discussion about the need for guns for hunting, and that for many people this was an important means of putting food on the table. I asked why it therefore follows that people need hunting rifles at home, couldn't they be stored somewhere secure and checked out on the way out of town for the hunt. I suggested the police station as a suitable secure location - and was told flatly that it was unacceptable to hand guns to the police while they were not needed. Of course, handing guns to the police while in town is part of the Western tradition ...
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Problem with the police station idea is that these may be distant from where people live, and people may not be actually present in a sheriff office or detachment all the time.

On another question, I have been puzzling about the calling someone a 'douche bag' or 'douche' and wondering if the same apparatus might be used for enemas, i.e., same gear used differently.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I suggested the police station as a suitable secure location - and was told flatly that it was unacceptable to hand guns to the police while they were not needed. Of course, handing guns to the police while in town is part of the Western tradition ...
The western thing is only part. There is also the mistrust of government and the fear of crime, despite lowering of actual crime stats.
BUt the argument isn't about rationality or reality anyway.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
The Wild West possibly wasn't that wild.

There's also a theory that many of America's core conservative values can be traced back to the Border Reivers. These were a small but incredibly fierce and resilient group of clans living on the England-Scotland border, who briefly emigrated to Ireland in the 17th century before carrying on the US. They became known as the Scots-Irish, got kicked out of every state before finally settling in the Appalachian Mountains, and became instrumental in colonising the Wild West.

Long but (IMO) hilarious and fascinating discussion here.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
The Wild West possibly wasn't that wild.
It is not about reality, it is about perception.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
But, surely when perception is wildly at odds with reality it needs to be challenged? Otherwise what you actually have is willful ignorance.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, surely when perception is wildly at odds with reality it needs to be challenged? Otherwise what you actually have is willful ignorance.
Of course misperception should be challenged, but what success rate do you think that has?
Facts have never disproved a conspiracy theory in the eyes of its faithful.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
10 Print "It's our mythology."
20 Print "What's the mythology of *your* country?"
30 GoTo 10
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, surely when perception is wildly at odds with reality it needs to be challenged? Otherwise what you actually have is willful ignorance.
Of course misperception should be challenged, but what success rate do you think that has?
Facts have never disproved a conspiracy theory in the eyes of its faithful.
Maybe we should look at success in terms of stopping people believing the lies, so they don't join the ranks of the conspiracy theorists. I've long since given up trying to convince YECies of the error of their ways, I've not given up on helping people who have heard about YEC but aren't convinced to retain the use of their brains.
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
* Don't you lot have a day celebrating inefectivity?
No, you ignorant peasant, we have a day of commemoration, not celebration. There is a great difference between the two.

Huia
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
* Don't you lot have a day celebrating inefectivity?
No, you ignorant peasant, we have a day of commemoration, not celebration. There is a great difference between the two.

Huia
I do know this. But I decided to counter his ignorant statement with another. In, perhaps vain, hope that it would point him to understanding. And I might have been baiting him as well. [Biased]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I haven't risen to two sets of Tori Amos remarks in the last week, what on earth made you think your attempt at baiting was going to work?

And others have done the work of illustrating that my statement wasn't nearly as ignorant as you claimed.

Though I will accept that some of the people who try to tell us all that individual gun ownership is some eternal American value are not wicked, just stupid. Nevertheless, I stand by the view that there was a deliberate push to create that notion.

[ 04. May 2016, 01:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Also: do not underestimate the power of wishful thinkingą. Wanting something to be so is awfully persuasive. Because, let me be honest, guns are exciting and fun. Luckily I am only persuaded to overwhelm my reason by such visceral nonsense with respect to cars and women.

 

 

 

 

ą Hey, look! The fundamental basis of religion!
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

And others have done the work of illustrating that my statement wasn't nearly as ignorant as you claimed.
Who? Where?


quote:

Though I will accept that some of the people who try to tell us all that individual gun ownership is some eternal American value are not wicked, just stupid. Nevertheless, I stand by the view that there was a deliberate push to create that notion.
WTF? Not what I was saying. I was illustrating that the construct is not as simple or completely recent as you claim.

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Luckily I am only persuaded to overwhelm my reason by such visceral nonsense with respect to cars and women.
Because you need one to get the other?
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Because you need one to get the other?
When you're married to a doctor, is it so wrong to have them help you buy a Tesla?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Nicely played.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
The Wild West possibly wasn't that wild.

There's also a theory that many of America's core conservative values can be traced back to the Border Reivers. These were a small but incredibly fierce and resilient group of clans living on the England-Scotland border, who briefly emigrated to Ireland in the 17th century before carrying on the US. They became known as the Scots-Irish, got kicked out of every state before finally settling in the Appalachian Mountains, and became instrumental in colonising the Wild West.

Long but (IMO) hilarious and fascinating discussion here.
There is indeed much romanticizing about Appalachian clans in certain regions of the US. Less than hilariously, one can argue the Klan used the glamor of the Border Reivers to give their own outfit more cultural resonance.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Why, thank you.

With any luck, Doc Tor's present fit will soon pass and we'll be relieved of his caring too much, at least for another six months.
The really funny thing about that post you quoted is that you don't have to scroll too far down to see a good number of We the You People growling with indignance about open carry bullshit. This is what I don't get-- care, don't care, who cares, but if you really do have a passion for ending gun violence in America, what in God's name does it serve to alienate people WHO TOTALLY FUCKING AGREE WITH YOU!

Hell rules aside-- realiy, nobody needs a lecture on that-- isn't it more efficient to achieve some sort of solidarity with people who have the same concerns you do? Is creating an "other" so satisfying that you ( general you) would rather sacrifice ideological allies than sacrifice an effigy to burn?

The only US person showing any kind of enthusiasm for personal gun use is fucking romanlion, and everybody hates him. On the other hand along time I go I said, " Fuck this us/ them shit, what can WE-- the Shipmates-- do, and all the clamoring peace warriors went abruptly silent.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
This is what I don't get-- care, don't care, who cares, but if you really do have a passion for ending gun violence in America, what in God's name does it serve to alienate people WHO TOTALLY FUCKING AGREE WITH YOU!
I know yours is a rhetorical question, but the truth is that Doc Tor's comments aren't hindering the cause of gun control in the US any more than our blathering about how much we hate gun violence is advancing it. He could alienate each and every one of us, and it would matter not one whit in this regard.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Fair point, but I think at this point I am starting to wonder if we should pull our magazine-- adjunct asses together and brainstorm. This thread is a snake eating its tail. Why not try something else?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
WTF? Not what I was saying.
I thought it was what you were saying in one part of your over-busy deconstruction. With a reference suggesting that I should accept, along with my other thoughts, the option of people being "ignorant or delusional".

If it wasn't, then I... don't care all that much really.

[ 04. May 2016, 11:32: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Fair point, but I think at this point I am starting to wonder if we should pull our magazine-- adjunct asses together and brainstorm. This thread is a snake eating its tail. Why not try something else?
Maybe a Purgatory discussion, "what can we do to help reduce gun deaths?" Hell isn't really the place for that sort of brainstorming.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
WTF? Not what I was saying.
I thought it was what you were saying in one part of your over-busy deconstruction. With a reference suggesting that I should accept, along with my other thoughts, the option of people being "ignorant or delusional".

If it wasn't, then I... don't care all that much really.
So, when did the Hellhost lounge start being stocked with LSD? And why isn't there a warning about mixing it with the GIN?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
The Wild West possibly wasn't that wild.

There's also a theory that many of America's core conservative values can be traced back to the Border Reivers. These were a small but incredibly fierce and resilient group of clans living on the England-Scotland border, who briefly emigrated to Ireland in the 17th century before carrying on the US. They became known as the Scots-Irish, got kicked out of every state before finally settling in the Appalachian Mountains, and became instrumental in colonising the Wild West.

Long but (IMO) hilarious and fascinating discussion here.
There is indeed much romanticizing about Appalachian clans in certain regions of the US. Less than hilariously, one can argue the Klan used the glamor of the Border Reivers to give their own outfit more cultural resonance.
That was, as you say, hilarious. And mind expanding - I knew about the Cavaliers in Virginia, but not about the implications. And, obviously, about the Puritans and the Quakers. But not about the Reivers.

The comments below were even more interesting, as they segued into a debate about your Civil War* as if it were still in progress.

*which seems to have been a continuation of ours after a long intermission.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
That was, as you say, hilarious. And mind expanding
Glad you liked it! I howled, but then wondered if I was biased. My family live near the Scottish Borders, and (as with many people here) my ancestors were Reavers 350 years ago. There's nothing left of Reaver attitudes in the area now - the Borders are no wilder than any other rural part of the UK.
quote:
The comments below were even more interesting, as they segued into a debate about your Civil War* as if it were still in progress.
Slate Star Codex is an interesting site. It's heavily tied into the Rationalist community, and it's one of the few places I've seen where the hard left and extreme right discuss issues without it turning too nasty. The blog's owner, Scott Alexander, is (IMO) an amazing bloke.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, when did the Hellhost lounge start being stocked with LSD? And why isn't there a warning about mixing it with the GIN?
I bought it while on sabbatical.

NEXT!
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
That was, as you say, hilarious. And mind expanding
Glad you liked it! I howled, but then wondered if I was biased. My family live near the Scottish Borders, and (as with many people here) my ancestors were Reavers 350 years ago. There's nothing left of Reaver attitudes in the area now - the Borders are no wilder than any other rural part of the UK.
quote:
The comments below were even more interesting, as they segued into a debate about your Civil War* as if it were still in progress.
Slate Star Codex is an interesting site. It's heavily tied into the Rationalist community, and it's one of the few places I've seen where the hard left and extreme right discuss issues without it turning too nasty. The blog's owner, Scott Alexander, is (IMO) an amazing bloke.
I remember much being made of Neil Armstrong's family's association with moon phases back in the past at some time close to the landings.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I remember much being made of Neil Armstrong's family's association with moon phases back in the past at some time close to the landings.
You mean some of his family were women?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Fair point, but I think at this point I am starting to wonder if we should pull our magazine-- adjunct asses together and brainstorm. This thread is a snake eating its tail. Why not try something else?
Maybe a Purgatory discussion, "what can we do to help reduce gun deaths?" Hell isn't really the place for that sort of brainstorming.
I know. Please show me where I said anything about having this discussion here.

[ 06. May 2016, 03:03: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
You didn't.

There seemed to be some opinions expressed (by others) that if all we did was rant on this thread then we weren't doing anything. When, in reality, all this thread is for is ranting about fucking guns - and sometimes a good rant is doing something, allowing those who are doing something more practical to let off steam so that their efforts might be more productive. This thread is serving it's purpose, and perhaps if some people wanted to see something more practical then they could start another thread.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So while you all (individually) have been bloviating and trying to tell me how I ought to express myself and policing my tone and educating me on the correct way to feel about 13000 largely preventable deaths by guns, another, what, 70 people have died?.... Maybe you've got so used to Hell-lite that what actual Hell looks like frightens you. Feel free never to visit here again, and you can take a razor blade to the Psalms while you're at it.
So the red herrings have been a random scattering of;



I don't see anyone buying any of it. Although I guess deano and evensong haven't shown up yet.

Could it be that in fact you've been acting like a cunt? Sure it's hell, that means you don't get admin attention for it, it doesn't mean you get a free pass and no-one should call you on it. Isn't that what you people normally say in these situations?

Look at RooK's post. If you are going to take the provocative, hard-as-nails hellish approach at least own it and drop the pathetic flailing justifications.

What the fuck is wrong with you?
Ok, I note the ire seems to be dying down, but that is the thing I haven't entirely gotten over yet, and while I more or less resolved to get off this thread, I'm gonna go ahead and express my bafflement again.
Doc: you people don't care, don't care, don't care?

A variety of people: the fuck? Of course we do. We have all kinds of reason to care.

Doc: problem not solved, so you don't care, don't care. Not like I do.
Doc : And don't you understand we European folk might have friends and family that might live in the US?

Me: the fuck? Since you opened that door, allow me to describe the year long hell that my family experienced due to one incident of gun violence. Because, if you need to have friends and family living here to care about gun violence, put your mind to rest about that whole "Americans don't care, don't care" thing.-- ALL of our friends and family live here. And a lot of us have shudder- worthy tales about how our friends and families-- again, the topic of which you brought up-- have been affected by gun violence. Weirdly enough. And when we lose people due to gun violence, it hurts us just as much as it would a British person, as unbelievable as that might seem.

Doc: Take that crybaby All Saints shit elsewhere. Oh but now I will share a personal story that you must respect. And stop telling me how to feel. But allow me to tell you what you feel, and don't argue with me. Otherwise stay out of Hell, you're too delicate.

Me: But YOU were the one who brought up-- Fuck it, I'm going to the pub.


I think one of the reasons I get so ungled about this subject is that I have been in childcare 30 years, and what I see kids doing on the playground freaks me out. The gun play has changed. Used to be you would walk onto playgrounds and occasionally see a kid point his finger and go pow pow, but in my current class there are three boys who truly can't seem to engage in any other kind of play except gunplay, and they don't point their fingers anymore, tney clench their fists and mimic automatic weapon fire. It seems to be a particular problem in lower income, urban programs, and these programs are particularly handcuffed by government curriculum and " assessment" requirements. ( Fucking testing-- there's a thread.) The kids who grow up in the areas where gun violence occurs are also the kids least likely to learn the kind of tools they need to transcend it.

Which is why it kind of makes me throttle people who crow, " Bang on more doors! Sign more petitions! Wave a wand and get those laws made!" Because that is not the frontline.

Pass a bunch of laws requiring a group gun recall in the current climate, and you'll just have a bunch of people hiding their guns. The battle is to change people's hearts. THAT is the frontline. If people are acclimated to a culture where the only version of " conflict" is " competative escalation followed by cathartic violence" all the fucking door pounding in the world will achieve precisely fuck- all.

Maybe seeing things from a teacher's perspective makes me make things all about school, but really-- the ideal place to empart conflict resolution, cooperation building, dealing with orher fucking people-- skills is public school, and the federal demands for teachers to quantify education through testing really castrates socialization. And it seems to getting worse and worse. Unsocialized primates of any species tend to autocannibalize. Get them close to guns and they can do it more expediently.

And that's part of the problem. In my darkest moments I believe the people who are used to running things would be quite happy if their version of " those people" offed each other, " those people" being the children of the migrant workers and labor class Latino people that I serve, my Tejano nephew and my in- laws, the largely black population of Hunter's Point, Pittsburg, CA, West Oakland.

Anyway, that's why I desperately cling the hope that my playground mediation and community building will do-- something. Have some sort of " trickle up" effect. Or at least fortify those particular kids.

[coding]

[ 06. May 2016, 07:35: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You didn't.

There seemed to be some opinions expressed (by others) that if all we did was rant on this thread then we weren't doing anything. When, in reality, all this thread is for is ranting about fucking guns - and sometimes a good rant is doing something, allowing those who are doing something more practical to let off steam so that their efforts might be more productive. This thread is serving it's purpose, and perhaps if some people wanted to see something more practical then they could start another thread.
But then again, one of the repeated themes is that People Aren't Doing Enough, so I guess you can view my comment as a mini rant about how something more than bitching needs to happen. Or, to expand, a mini-rant that some of the smartest, most creative folk I know are content to just rant and point fingers. Others have said similar things.

Again, probably a teacher thing. You want to see all that talent applied to something. Teacher Hell Rants are gonna come out... Teachery.

Which, given how teachers can be... I guess I can see how that would press buttons.

[ 06. May 2016, 04:26: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Sorry, Alan, I just realized I repeated everything you just said.

The school I have committed to working in till July is a real war zone. I guess it's brain addling.

[ 06. May 2016, 05:20: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I remember much being made of Neil Armstrong's family's association with moon phases back in the past at some time close to the landings.
You mean some of his family were women?
I mean that, being reivers, they kept a close watch on when the Moon would give enough light for them to carry out their business.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
"Zimmerman offers gun used to kill Martin on new auction site: report" (Yahoo).

George Zimmerman doesn't seem to have the sense to just shut up, and do his best to stay out of the limelight. The Feds recently gave back to him the gun with which he killed Trayvon Martin, and he's trying to auction it off, and use the money to fight Black Lives Matter and to support the police.

IMHO, ISTM that he's still got the situation roiling around inside him, and is driven to defend himself in the public eye.

(FYI: I think he was wrong to kill Trayvon.)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
(I wouldn't, but) I'd be tempted to buy the gun then turn up at his door and shoot him with it (before he has a chance to cash the cheque and give it to support the vile causes he's highlighted). If it's not illegal to use that gun to shoot a kid for walking while black, it can't be illegal to use it to shoot someone for the much graver offence of breathing while being an arsehole.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
First of all. Quotesfile.

Second of all, that fucking walking pissstain, Zimmerman. [Mad] [Mad]

Up on my FB feed I noticed another agonizing story about a toddler finding an unliscened firearm and shooting herself. A toddler. Jesus wept.

[ 12. May 2016, 23:03: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Why do toddlers shoot all the wrong people?
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
(I wouldn't, but) I'd be tempted to buy the gun then turn up at his door and shoot him with it (before he has a chance to cash the cheque and give it to support the vile causes he's highlighted). If it's not illegal to use that gun to shoot a kid for walking while black, it can't be illegal to use it to shoot someone for the much graver offence of breathing while being an arsehole.
Just be sure he's armed with a box of Skittles so that you can claim it's in self-defense.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If it's not illegal to use that gun to shoot a kid for walking while black
What a pity for your narrative that an extensive legal process didn't accept that this is what happened.

What you're doing is taking a legal finding and ignoring the FACTUAL findings that went with it.

Because the law is actually pretty clear that it IS illegal to shoot a kid for walking while black. It's just that a jury wasn't satisfied that your narrative was the true one.

But then, "it's not illegal to shoot a black kid who is beating your head into the ground" doesn't have the same ring to it.

[ 13. May 2016, 05:21: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If it's not illegal to use that gun to shoot a kid for walking while black
What a pity for your narrative that an extensive legal process didn't accept that this is what happened.

What you're doing is taking a legal finding and ignoring the FACTUAL findings that went with it.
Factual is not actual, nor is it necessarily complete.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

But then, "it's not illegal to shoot a black kid who is beating your head into the ground" doesn't have the same ring to it.
How about stalking an innocent person and forcing a confrontation?
If you wish to represent that the jury found for Zimmerman legally and within the bounds of their remit, then you are objectively correct. If you are making a statement that the situation was as Zimmerman purports, that race played no factor, then you are making as much an assumption as you are accusing Alan of doing.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Well, there were only two witnesses to what happened that night. One testified in his own defence in court, the other was in the morgue where his version can't be heard. The jury gave their verdict, but there's still something very odd about a kid walking home from the store ending up shot dead.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But then, "it's not illegal to shoot a black kid who is beating your head into the ground" doesn't have the same ring to it.
What whatshisface said, but also this:
That the legal system functioned in a way that was cautious about meting out punishment for something that was ultimately not completely provable is a good thing in my opinion. But that is a fucking looooong way from the idiotic conjecture that courts deal with pure facts, or the odious misconception that courts decisions are necessarily reflections of Truth™.

And you of all the fucking assholes on this board should know that.

That Zimmerman is seeking to cash in on his high-profile killing of another human makes him an asshole all by itself. His contribution to the situation that lead up to the killing (engaging threateningly with someone because they are walking while black) also makes him a first grade asshole. There is no part of Alan's sneer that you have refuted, rather just displaying a horrific zealotry to the discernment of courts.

Still, I get that it's fun to find facets from which to dissent.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
There were more witness accounts. However, the police handling makes at least one of these questionable.
Even with the best intentions, eyewitness testimony is fraught with problems. Interviewers need to be properly trained so not to influence witnesses or infer based on their own presuppositions.
The best that can be said of the police in this incident is that they were less than completely competent in their handling of the witnesses.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There were more witness accounts.
OK, maybe I should have said "eye-witnesses" and clarified that to include reference to the pertinent detail - why was a kid walking home from the store involved in an argument, why did that argument escalate to Zimmerman getting injured, and at what point was the gun produced and fired.

There were also the police dispatchers who told Zimmerman not to follow.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by whowasitagain?:

That the legal system functioned in a way that was cautious about meting out punishment for something that was ultimately not completely provable is a good thing in my opinion. But that is a fucking looooong way from the idiotic conjecture that courts deal with pure facts, or the odious misconception that courts decisions are necessarily reflections of Truth™.
I'm sure that orfeo knows this, intellectually. But he does tend to represent the courts as closer to objective and infallible than is demonstrably the reality.


quote:

That Zimmerman is seeking to cash in on his high-profile killing of another human makes him an asshole all by itself. His contribution to the situation that lead up to the killing (engaging threateningly with someone because they are walking while black) also makes him a first grade asshole. There is no part of Alan's sneer that you have refuted, rather just displaying a horrific zealotry to the discernment of courts.
A-the the fucking-men
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There were more witness accounts.
OK, maybe I should have said "eye-witnesses" and clarified that to include reference to the pertinent detail - why was a kid walking home from the store involved in an argument, why did that argument escalate to Zimmerman getting injured, and at what point was the gun produced and fired.

There were also the police dispatchers who told Zimmerman not to follow.
I'm sure as here not defending orfeo's POV on this. But he was bound to bring up the others and I was dealing with it first.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Wow. The inability of you all to get the point is truly spectacular.

I'm not arguing about what actually happened. Which means that every single thing you post about this or that other witness and what they said is of zero interest to me right now.

I'm challenging Alan's assertion about what the law says.

Okay? That's the issue here. Not what the true facts are, but Alan trying to suggest that the law looked at the facts as Alan sees the facts and said "hey, it's fine to kill a black kid in those circumstances".

That's just total bullshit. If the facts as Alan sees them were established, then the law would say that killing a black kid in those circumstances is not okay.

And forget all this crap about me thinking that whatever the facts are as found in a court case are the true facts. Nothing I said indicates that. But Alan is trying to make a claim about what the legal principle is, and his claim is utter bullshit because he's trying to fuse the legal conclusion based on one set of factual findings with a completely different set of factual findings, his own. You can't separate a legal conclusion with the facts that the legal conclusion was based on.

Whether those facts are true or not doesn't mean shit. Appeal courts decide cases on an assumed set of facts all the time. Okay? All the time they say given this set of facts, here's the legal outcome.

And that's why Alan's post is bullshit. Given the facts as Alan presented them, it is just completely wrong to assert that the law would say the killing was okay.

[ 13. May 2016, 08:13: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, there were only two witnesses to what happened that night. One testified in his own defence in court, the other was in the morgue where his version can't be heard. The jury gave their verdict, but there's still something very odd about a kid walking home from the store ending up shot dead.
There's something even more odd about a 2 year old shooting his mother dead - or someone meting out the same punishment to a person who was sitting in "their" pew at church.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Does it alter the fact that in this instance I think the law is completely and utterly insane?

It is insanity to allow untrained, self appointed, armed vigillantes to patrol a neighbourhood.

It is insanity to allow individuals with restraining orders for violence to own a gun, let alone carry it around the streets.

It is insanity to give people the automatic right to use lethal force when there are a vast number of alternatives to prevent harm to yourself (first and foremost backing away).

And, so a set of laws that are IMO total insanity mean that a jury has no choice but to decide that the law allowed an unarmed kid walking back from the shops to be shot dead.

So, ultimately a set of fucking insane laws have effectively created a situation where Zimmerman could shoot a kid dead for no other reason than walking while black.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Does it alter the fact that in this instance I think the law is completely and utterly insane?
Depends. Let's see...

quote:
It is insanity to allow untrained, self appointed, armed vigillantes to patrol a neighbourhood.
No argument from me there.

quote:
It is insanity to allow individuals with restraining orders for violence to own a gun, let alone carry it around the streets.
No argument from me there either.

quote:
It is insanity to give people the automatic right to use lethal force when there are a vast number of alternatives to prevent harm to yourself (first and foremost backing away).
I don't know that the law, even in America, gives you "the automatic right to use lethal force". Most self-defence laws require proportionality. I know that some American states have made the requirements easier in your own home. I'm not aware of any evidence that the requirements have been made easier in a public space.

quote:
And, so a set of laws that are IMO total insanity mean that a jury has no choice but to decide that the law allowed an unarmed kid walking back from the shops to be shot dead.


This does not remotely follow from your previous paragraphs, you idiot. JURIES DON'T DECIDE THE LAW.

You're using the kind of reasoning that suggests thinks that goal line technology in football changed the rules. The fact that you disagree with the referee in an individual game about whether or not the whole of the ball crossed the line has precisely NOTHING to do with the rule being that the whole of the ball must cross the line.

Laws are principles stated before the fact that state "if this happens, this is the outcome[/i]. You are so convinced that you know what happened that you are fusing legal principles with factual findings in ways that are total nonsense. No-one wrote a law about a black unarmed kid with Skittles in his pocket, and no-one asked a jury to decide what the law was.

Frankly, I am fuck to sicking death of people deciding that an unarmed kid walking home from the shops just can't possibly have been a threat to anyone else. I've said a number of times on this board that Zimmerman behaved like an idiot, but why are people so resistant to the proposition that Trayvon Martin behaved like an idiot as well? Being dead doesn't automatically make you the innocent blameless victim, and being alive doesn't automatically make you the perpetrator to have all the blame.

[ 13. May 2016, 09:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
You want to talk about unarmed kids being shot dead, pick another case. There are plenty of them. Why the fuck do people keep picking the case where the other guy had injuries? Why not pick the case where the kid playing with a toy gun was shot the second the police officer arrived? Why not pick a whole pile of other cases where there's no question but that the dead kid didn't do anything wrong?

No, let's just stick with the case where there's evidence that there were two idiots, both with too much bravado for the situation, because the one without the gun lost out. Let's stick with the case where it was impossible to exclude a genuine case of self-defence, because out of the pair of idiots it was the young black one who ended up dead and that makes us angry. Because the police didn't charge the other guy right away, and we know that all cases where an unarmed black kid gets shot are the same. Heck, we're so certain they're all the same, we could make it a law about unarmed black kids.

Which is exactly what you did, Alan. You made a law not about possession of guns, or about self-defence, but about the death of black kids. You want to make a law based purely and simply on how you feel about the one who died versus the one who lived.

Fuck that for an arbitrary crock of shit.

[ 13. May 2016, 09:43: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
We're picking this case for one simple reason. The guy that pulled the trigger has decided that the lethal weapon is an "American icon" and wants to sell it for a significant sum of money. And, Hell is the only place on the Ship for us to express our thoughts on that.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
And, so a set of laws that are IMO total insanity mean that a jury has no choice but to decide that the law allowed an unarmed kid walking back from the shops to be shot dead.


This does not remotely follow from your previous paragraphs, you idiot. JURIES DON'T DECIDE THE LAW.
Who said juries decide the law? I certainly didn't.

Juries are asked to decide whether the evidence presented supports the case that someone is guilty of breaking the law. I'm sure jury members would have their opinions about the law, but those are irrelevant because they have a judgement to make based on what the law is.

As far as I can tell from the media reporting the laws in Florida basically left them with no choice but to say "not guilty" - because the law allowed Zimmerman to appoint himself as a vigilante, the law allowed him to carry a gun, and the law allowed him to use a gun to defend himself against a kid using his fists. Even if Zimmerman provoked Martin, if Martin had been scared because this strange bloke was following him, if Martin attacked because a gun was drawn and thought he was going to be shot ... we will never know the sequence of events that lead up to that fatal bullet being fired. And, because we can't know the jury couldn't know either. So, given the law as it stood they had to acquit, because according to that law there was insufficient evidence to conclude he had done anything wrong.

As I said, the law left the jury with no choice but "not guilty".
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Wow. The inability of you all to get the point is truly spectacular.
If one person misunderstands you, it could be them. If everyone misunderstands you in exactly the same way, it might not be so clearly them.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
JURIES DON'T DECIDE THE LAW.
Then what the hell is precedent?
Courtrooms sure as hell interpret law. Part of the reason appeals courts exist is because of the potential for misinterpretation of law. Proportionality? The mere existence of a self-defence specific law will push interpretation towards the parties invoking it.
A link to the statute, but here is the salient bit
quote:
A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary
What the jury interprets as a reasonable belief is very subjective. To opine that the jury had no better choice might be fair, but that it had no other valid choice is OTT.


IMO, part of the reason for the arguments that you get into here is that you often appear to present the law as much more balanced, objective and unbiased than it is anywhere I have observed it. Granted, I've not observed Australian legal proceeding, so perhaps you lot have transcended human nature and fallibility.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:


So, ultimately a set of fucking insane laws have effectively created a situation where Zimmerman could shoot a kid dead for no other reason than walking while black.
That simply isn't true. Zimmerman shot someone for being on top of him banging his head against the concrete and allegedly reaching for Zimmerman's gun.
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
So he says, anyway. There weren't exactly any witnesses, were there?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:


So, ultimately a set of fucking insane laws have effectively created a situation where Zimmerman could shoot a kid dead for no other reason than walking while black.
That simply isn't true. Zimmerman shot someone for being on top of him banging his head against the concrete and allegedly reaching for Zimmerman's gun.
Zimmerman says. Might be accurate, but we do not know the TRUTH

[ 13. May 2016, 17:46: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
Sorry - I've just scrolled back and read the stuff about witnesses - but none of the witnesses seem to have been entirely sure about what happened.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
Sorry - I've just scrolled back and read the stuff about witnesses - but none of the witnesses seem to have been entirely sure about what happened.
Eyewitnesses are the boon of a weak case and the bane of justice. Not that they are wholly without value, but that the value is highly over-rated and over-used.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
So he says, anyway. There weren't exactly any witnesses, were there?
Well, there was one witness who saw the whole thing, but Zimmerman killed him.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
lilBuddha , a jury decision does not set a precedent. A decision by a judge - or in rare instances directions given by a judge to a jury - sets a precedent.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
lilBuddha , a jury decision does not set a precedent. A decision by a judge - or in rare instances directions given by a judge to a jury - sets a precedent.
Alright, my bad. The rest of the point still stands.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Update: Racist McShootface is kind of awesome.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Update: Racist McShootface is kind of awesome.
First I learn that Satanists aren't all bad, now trolls are useful. Hell is a different place than I ever imagined.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
So he says, anyway. There weren't exactly any witnesses, were there?
So if there are no witnesses we just put people in jail because they can't prove their innocence? Guilty until proven innocent? Where are your witnesses who saw Zimmerman gunning down a man who was just walking down the street? At least there was some physical evidence that Zimmerman's story was true. Under your laws no one can ever defend himself unless there are witnesses around.

Zimmerman is just the sort of gun owner I can't stand. A wanna be policeman, who buys a gun and then starts looking for an opportunity to use it, who thinks he's one of the "good guys," and dreams fantasies of finding a bad guy and being a hero. He shouldn't have carried a gun on neighborhood watch. He shouldn't have left the car. He shouldn't have asked Trayvon what he was doing. But none of those things are against the law and being an asshole is not something that deserves the death penalty.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
So if there are no witnesses we just put people in jail because they can't prove their innocence? Guilty until proven innocent?
Cases are decided everyday with no eyewitnesses.

[quote][qb]
But none of those things are against the law and being an asshole is not something that deserves the death penalty.
It isn't only that he fouls the reputations of assholes, but that the most generous interpretations of his actions still leaves dead a person that didn't need to be.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
lilBuddha , a jury decision does not set a precedent. A decision by a judge - or in rare instances directions given by a judge to a jury - sets a precedent.
Alright, my bad. The rest of the point still stands.
So, you're out at a club and go to the ladies room. There's another club patron there, considerably larger and younger than you, and she's intent on your virtue. You clearly can't stop her otherwise, so as she puts her hands around your throat, you grab your hatpin and stab her. Because of the struggle, instead of plunging the pin into her arm, it goes into her throat and kills her. Your virtue still intact, you're charged with murder.

Do you not have a defence? If not, why not?

[ 13. May 2016, 23:25: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
But, that's not quite the analogy.

Closer would be, you're in a club and see a very much larger woman enter the rest room. You comment to others that this looks very suspicious, that there have been lots of incidents of people using the rest rooms and leaving without flushing, and you're going to check it out. Everyone tells you to stay out of it, inform the club management and get the bouncers to look into it. But, you march on in anyway, then come out a few minutes later claiming that she attacked you, she was all over you and you were forced to defend yourself with your handy hat pin.

The period between you going into the rest room and coming out is a black box with limited information beyond what you say. "She grabbed me as soon as I walked in the door" is a good story, but is it truth? Only you know whether you approached her saying "what the fuck are you doing in here?", maybe you gave her a shove first, or you pulled out your hat pin to intimidate her and all she did was push you to one side trying to get to the door to escape this pin-wielding madwoman.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
So he says, anyway. There weren't exactly any witnesses, were there?
Oh for fuck's sake. "So he says"? So you think that he just opened his mouth and said "he was hitting my head against the concrete" and people believed him despite him having no physical injuries?

I sometimes think people on the internet forget about the physical world. Here it's all just words. And people don't have heads so they don't think about things like physical injuries to heads.

There was physical evidence. That's why the police found Zimmerman's account sufficiently credible. Not because they just compared the skin tone of the two people involved.

[ 14. May 2016, 01:00: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
So what next, Alan? You aren't sure what happened in the restroom so you would charge the woman with murder and send her to prison? Twenty years for being a bossy bitch who confronts people about flushing?

That's what I keep hearing about Zimmerman, that he should have gone to prison for being a jerk.

Trayvon told his girlfriend on the phone that someone was following him and he wasn't going to stand for it ( or something like that.) He had a history of fighting, so it's not hard to believe that he jumped Zimmerman. Now I have no sympathy for Zimmerman getting beat up since he was where he shouldn't have been doing what he shouldn't have done, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have been legally entitled to use self-defense, even lethal self-defense, when having his head slammed against the ground.

Of course we don't have it on film and, as is usual in murder cases, the victim can't tell his side, but it seems to me like we have a reasonable doubt here before calling it murder.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
and the law allowed him to use a gun to defend himself against a kid using his fists.
I don't support wide carrying of guns any more than you do, but any kind of law that says whoever has the largest weapon is in the wrong...

If anyone ever jumps you and starts strangling you, would you like me to say that it's okay because your assailant is unarmed and has darker skin than you? That's basically the angle you've been pushing, and it is so ridiculously arbitrary.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, you march on in anyway, then come out a few minutes later claiming that she attacked you, she was all over you and you were forced to defend yourself with your handy hat pin.
And here's another one just completely ignoring any possibility of physical evidence and reducing it all down to words. If you're going to insist on accurate analogies, include observable injuries on the person who is claiming self-defence.

The amount of cherry-picking you all engage in to ensure that a dislikable person is guilty is on the nose.

[ 14. May 2016, 01:03: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
and the law allowed him to use a gun to defend himself against a kid using his fists.
I don't support wide carrying of guns any more than you do, but any kind of law that says whoever has the largest weapon is in the wrong...

If anyone ever jumps you and starts strangling you, would you like me to say that it's okay because your assailant is unarmed and has darker skin than you? That's basically the angle you've been pushing, and it is so ridiculously arbitrary.
It's equally arbitrary to say that if Zimmerman came up behind Martin with hos gun already drawn that Martin wasn't within his rights to throw a punch knocking Zimmerman onto the ground where his head hit the concrete. And, since no one else saw the sequence of events prior to the two wrestling on the ground that's as plausible an explanation of events as any.

It seems to me that Florida has laws that allows a self-appointed vigilante to confront someone they consider to be acting suspiciously (in this case it appears to be walking while black), and a law that allows someone to stand their ground and use lethal force in self defence. It doesn't seem to me necessary that those laws should be applied separately, if you initiate a confrontation that escalates to the point where you feel physically threatened do you still have the right to use lethal force in self-defence. Obviously either that argument wasn't presented to the jury, or they weren't convinced by it, or they were advised that the law keeps those separate and so the events leading up to the point where self-defence comes into effect are irrelevant to the question of whether the use of lethal force was justified, or (probably most likely) as the jury had no more idea of what lead to the wrestling on the ground than the rest of us that they couldn't come to a verdict that required that information.

I still don't see how it's possible to take that one fraction of a second where the trigger is squeezed in isolation. There was evidence presented that not only did Zimmerman follow Martin, but that Martin noticed he was being followed and that made him very nervous. Clearly Zimmerman contributed to the escalation of the situation from an innocent kid walking home, to that kid getting nervous enough to decide that getting home faster was a good idea, to at some point a physical confrontation happening ... and finally to that shot being fired. Well, it's clear to me that the situation escalated in part due to the actions of Zimmerman, some of which the police dispatcher advised against. And, yet Zimmerman walked free without facing any consequences for escalating the situation.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, you march on in anyway, then come out a few minutes later claiming that she attacked you, she was all over you and you were forced to defend yourself with your handy hat pin.
And here's another one just completely ignoring any possibility of physical evidence and reducing it all down to words. If you're going to insist on accurate analogies, include observable injuries on the person who is claiming self-defence.
I thought my analogy included a physical element. OK, a physical confrontation including physical injuries. Now, how to tell whether those were caused by being attacked as you walked through the door, or because you were standing in the doorway (the only way out) and got shoved as the other person tried to get out of an enclosed space with someone armed and dangerous. That is the difficulty, because both scenarios could have resulted in the same injuries - but in one they are the result of an attack you are defending against, in the other they are the result of the other person defending themselves against you.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And here's another one just completely ignoring any possibility of physical evidence and reducing it all down to words. If you're going to insist on accurate analogies, include observable injuries on the person who is claiming self-defence.
Given the evidence, it is at least as reasonable to posit that Martin was standing his ground against an attacker with the only weapons he had, his fists.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, you march on in anyway, then come out a few minutes later claiming that she attacked you, she was all over you and you were forced to defend yourself with your handy hat pin.
And here's another one just completely ignoring any possibility of physical evidence and reducing it all down to words. If you're going to insist on accurate analogies, include observable injuries on the person who is claiming self-defence.
I thought my analogy included a physical element. OK, a physical confrontation including physical injuries. Now, how to tell whether those were caused by being attacked as you walked through the door, or because you were standing in the doorway (the only way out) and got shoved as the other person tried to get out of an enclosed space with someone armed and dangerous. That is the difficulty, because both scenarios could have resulted in the same injuries - but in one they are the result of an attack you are defending against, in the other they are the result of the other person defending themselves against you.
Yes, that is the difficulty. At least you're now wrestling with the difficulty instead of completely ignoring it.

I don't claim to have certain knowledge of what happened, and I don't think the court case involves certain findings of what happened (being a jury case rather than having a judge set out factual findings, you don't get that level of information from them).

But what I can't stand is some sort of glib statement that it's an open and shut case of wrongful killing and that the law allows a killing that you consider wrong.

It's just rubbish. For starters, no law is written in such a specific way. That's been my point from the get-go of my little tirade. Individual cases such as this one don't set any kind of legal precedent, so quit trying to use it as one.

The law says that you are entitled to defend yourself. And yes, there are American states that most definitely extend that entitlement farther than you or I would like, but it's still a law of general principle that doesn't go into an exhaustive list of which means you can defend yourself with.

I personally knew the mother of a man who was on trial for murder after killing 2 other men with a shotgun. Here, in Australia where people generally don't go around carrying guns. He had a shotgun because his job required it. Are you going to tell him that, in fear of his life, he has to drop the shotgun and find something else more suitable?

The law also says that the onus is on the prosecution. And that includes proving beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't self-defence, when there is evidence that it was. And focusing on what Zimmerman said is just sliding past the evidence. Of course his mere words aren't any kind of evidence that he was being assaulted. But that's why we don't rely on his mere words. Physical evidence, other witnesses such as they are, the person who was speaking to Zimmerman when he went to investigate Martin, the person who was speaking to Martin when he went to investigate Zimmerman.

The reason Zimmerman was acquitted is not simply because he verbally claimed self-defence. The reason he was acquitted was because there was enough evidence surrounding that claim to make it credible. The reason the son of the woman I knew was acquitted of murder was because there was enough evidence to make it credible that he was scared for his life when he used a shotgun.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And here's another one just completely ignoring any possibility of physical evidence and reducing it all down to words. If you're going to insist on accurate analogies, include observable injuries on the person who is claiming self-defence.
Given the evidence, it is at least as reasonable to posit that Martin was standing his ground against an attacker with the only weapons he had, his fists.
Sure. Now learn about onus of proof and you'll understand why I really don't give a shit what it is reasonable to posit in THAT direction. Taking the case against Zimmerman at its highest is not how this works.

[ 14. May 2016, 02:11: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The onus of proof worked for Zimmerman because he is the only one that survived the encounter. And that is a major problem with "Stand Your Ground" laws.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But what I can't stand is some sort of glib statement that it's an open and shut case of wrongful killing and that the law allows a killing that you consider wrong.
I thought I'd initially put it the another way around with my list of what I considered to be the idiocy of the relevant laws. The law allowed Zimmerman to be legally in a position where the killing could take place - those laws allowed him to act as a self-appointed vigilante, to carry a gun, to follow and confront a kid who was walking while black. That resulted in a death that should not have happened. Even if at the precise moment the trigger was pulled there was a credible case for it being self defence, and therefore "not wrong", the circumstances that lead to that point contained a lot of things that I would consider to be wrong.

quote:
Individual cases such as this one don't set any kind of legal precedent, so quit trying to use it as one.
I'm not trying to set any legal precedent. That would be the job of the courts, the appeal courts in particular.

What an individual case can do is highlight where the law is in some way imperfect. When a large portion of the population considers that the law has produced "the wrong result" (in this case, the wrong result being a dead kid) that should trigger an examination of the relevant laws to see if they can be clarified or improved in some way. Of course, that examination can always come back and say "no change needed". In the UK and Australia that has been the response of our governments in many shooting cases - and, in the light of those enquiries we have often significantly changed our laws. In the US, by contrast, there seems to be a deep reluctance to hold such enquiries. In the Zimmerman case, has anyone asked questions about whether neighbourhood watch groups need more regulation, whether they need more closely defined lists of what they should or shouldn't do in particular circumstances (eg: if they see something suspicious from their home or car, should they venture outside to investigate?), whether members of such groups should satisfy some suitability test especially if they are expected to be armed?

quote:
The law also says that the onus is on the prosecution. And that includes proving beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't self-defence, when there is evidence that it was.
And, as I said before, the jury gave the only verdict that seemed possible within the law. Which is that they didn't have any evidence about the events immediately prior to the tussle on the ground, and therefore could not conclude whether or not it was self defence. The prosecution couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt it wasn't self-defence, therefore the jury had to give a not-guilty verdict.

But, my point about the law directing them that way was simply that under different laws they may have had different options. Zimmerman was not acting illegally by setting himself up as an armed defender of the neighbourhood, nor was he acting illegally by following Martin. It's quite possible to have laws which say that the police are the defenders of the neighbourhood, and citizens are only entitled to carry arms to protect themselves and their own property - in which case, the jury could have drawn the conclusion that Zimmerman was acting illegally in following and confronting Martin and thus ask the question of whether self-defence is a valid defence if you're acting criminally. I doubt an armed robber has successfully made a self-defence case against a charge of murdering a security guard, what jury would consider a "well the guard pulled a gun on me, I was only defending myself" case reasonable?

But, even though Zimmerman was acting stupidly (he got a crack on the head for his troubles, if Martin had been armed, or got the gun off Zimmerman, he could have been the one in the morgue) and against the advice of the police, he was not acting against the law. So, that line of argument wasn't available to the prosecution nor could it be considered by the jury. As I said, the law constrained the verdict the jury could give. If the law was less idiotic (ie: it didn't allow someone with a history of violence to set themselves up as an armed vigilante) then the jury may have produced a different verdict.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The onus of proof worked for Zimmerman because he is the only one that survived the encounter. And that is a major problem with "Stand Your Ground" laws.
Oh my God, no.

Stop trying to make this into a contest as to whether Zimmerman or Martin is the better person. The case is not Martin v Zimmerman. The case is the State v Zimmerman.

Being the only one that survived the encounter is why Zimmerman is the one who got put on trial..
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not trying to set any legal precedent.
We are having this conversation because of this:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If it's not illegal to use that gun to shoot a kid for walking while black, it can't be illegal to use it to shoot someone for the much graver offence of breathing while being an arsehole.
Okay? The last page of me frothing at the mouth is precisely because you fucking well tried to throw around statements about legal precedent.

[ 14. May 2016, 03:42: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
That's what got you going? Try reading it again, just the first two characters will do.

If

That's important. Because quite clearly it is illegal to shoot someone for walking while being black.

The rest of the conversation seems to have mostly been about under what circumstances it might be legal to shoot someone who is swinging a punch at you. And, having that discussion in the context of a legal system neither of us operate under.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Stop trying to make this into a contest as to whether Zimmerman or Martin is the better person.
I'm not. And haven't in this or previous threads regarding this case.
quote:

The case is not Martin v Zimmerman. The case is the State v Zimmerman.
Not in practice. In practice questioning the character of the victim is part of defence strategy.
quote:

Being the only one that survived the encounter is why Zimmerman is the one who got put on trial..
It is true that if he were dead, he would not be on trial.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That's what got you going? Try reading it again, just the first two characters will do.

If

That's important. Because quite clearly it is illegal to shoot someone for walking while being black.
Funny. That's exactly what I said to you. You didn't seem happy with that answer.

You seriously expect me to believe that when you said "if", you didn't believe in your anger against Zimmerman that the if was true? What exactly is the point of that or any of your other responses up until now if you didn't believe the "if"?

If you knew that Zimmerman was not found to have shot someone while they were walking while being black, your entire conversation doesn't make one ounce of sense. EVEN THAT POST doesn't make an ounce of sense.

What the fuck is the point of that if...then statement if you think the if isn't true?

Right now it's hard to avoid the conclusion that with a cooler head you realise what you said was a pile of rubbish, and you're disingenuously trying to back out of it and pretend that you just were throwing up an "if" proposition in a purely theoretical way.

[ 14. May 2016, 05:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It's called a rhetorical device (there's probably some fancy name for it). It was intended to make a humourous statement (I'll leave it to others to judge the quality of the humour) while expressing ongoing angst about the culture surrounding guns within parts of the population of the US. It was contrasting being black with being an arsehole, with the implication that if either was grounds for shooting someone then it would be the latter.

Oh look, there's another one of those if .. then statements - I'm not actually implying it's right to shoot anyone. But, we use 'if' statements all the time, there are several in your own posts.

If I wanted a serious discussion on the issues of gun violence, culture and gun control I'd start that thread in Purgatory. But, this is Hell. I wasn't expecting to have to take a statement that Zimmerman is an arsehole and defend all the different forms of arsehole he is.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Right now it's hard to avoid the conclusion that with a cooler head you realise what you said was a pile of rubbish, and you're disingenuously trying to back out of it and pretend that you just were throwing up an "if" proposition in a purely theoretical way.
You edited that in while I was typing.

I'm willing to accept that I may be wrong in the finer points of what the law in Florida actually says regarding the various aspects relevant to the Zimmerman case. I'm also willing to accept that what I've read in the media is a fraction of the evidence presented in court, and there may be factors the jury had to consider that I'm not aware of. I'm even willing to accept that what I posted last night was written under the influence of several glasses of whisky.

But, I'm going to stand by my view that Zimmerman was in the wrong when he shot Martin - even if what he did was not declared illegal. That is because, regardless of what the law may say, I believe that it is always wrong to shoot someone else. I'll concede that in a very few circumstances where the alternative is to let someone shoot other people it may be less wrong than not shooting someone. In the case of Zimmerman that's not relevant, because no one has ever claimed he thought Martin was heading to the local school armed to the teeth, all Zimmerman was concerned with was that Martin might be casing up the neighbourhood with the view of breaking into some of the houses and stealing stuff. IMO, use of lethal force to protect property is always disproportionate and therefore wrong, without any of the "less wrong than the alternative" caveat.

But, those are my views. The view of a sizable proportion of the US population is different. The view of the US legal system is different, and all I can do about that is to express my opinion that the law is insane and offer moral support to US citizens who seek to make the law a bit less insane.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I have no problem with any moral position that says Zimmerman was not in a morally good place.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Not in practice. In practice questioning the character of the victim is part of defence strategy.


Not sure exactly what you mean by that, nor what evidence there is behind it. But a criminal case is one between the government and the accused (with a very few minor exceptions). It flows from the duty of the sovereign to maintain internal peace. You appear to have no understanding of basic criminal process.

Nor have you yet even attempted to answer my self-defence question.

[ 14. May 2016, 08:52: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If it's not illegal to use that gun to shoot a kid for walking while black, it can't be illegal to use it to shoot someone for the much graver offence of breathing while being an arsehole.
Okay?
Would it improve Alan Cresswell's case if he replaced 'if it's not illegal to X' to 'if any law making it illegal to X will not be enforced' (through inability to make the charges stick beyond reasonable doubt, for example)?

As with O.J.Simpson of course the fact that the evidence against Zimmerman doesn't meet the standard required to go beyond reasonable doubt, does not preclude the possibility of thinking the evidence does meet lesser standards.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

walking while black
Since it's been said about fifteen times here I have to point out that Martin was neither followed nor shot for walking while black. He was followed for loitering in the rain outside a building that had recently been burglarized and he was shot for trying to beat someone up.

"Walking while black," is a good descriptive phrase to use regarding police profiling, with their habit of questioning black men who are out walking in largely white residential neighborhoods. It's very wrong and it has, thankfully, become against police policy, but it doesn't apply here.

I agree with Alan that it is almost always morally wrong to shoot someone and certainly wrong to shoot someone to protect property. Neighborhood watch groups did have talks about whether or not they should continue to exist after this incident and I think it was always against their policy to carry a gun while on watch.

Then again, I think it's morally wrong to punch someone in the face for asking you what you're doing. I think that night was a perfect storm of two hot headed males who had both seen too many action movies and both had completely messed up ideas of what it meant to be a man. It's particularly sad that one was very young and might have had time to change and the other has become so defensive he's now ten times the asshole he was when this all started.

[ 14. May 2016, 11:26: Message edited by: Twilight ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Since it's been said about fifteen times here I have to point out that Martin was neither followed nor shot for walking while black. He was followed for loitering in the rain outside a building that had recently been burglarized and he was shot for trying to beat someone up.
OK, maybe I should say that according to the reports I read, Zimmerman called the police to say he had seen someone walking through the neighbourhood, apparently looking at the houses. None of the reports I read saw said anything about him stopping outside any of the houses, let along loitering. I suppose he probably stopped to check traffic before crossing roads, if that counts as loitering. And, what's wrong with looking around as you walk? I do it all the time, it passes the time to see a garden with some nice plants, or a house with some unusual feature.

All the reports I read have basically said that Zimmerman started following Martin because he thought he was acting suspiciously. And, that what Martin was doing was walking in the rain, and he was black and young. Since even in America people walk short distances rather than drive everywhere, and you can't control the weather, walking in the rain would be quite common. So, young and black would seem to be the defining characteristic.

Maybe you can point me in the direction of the reports of loitering. Since it's a feature of the story that wasn't universally reported.

And, we've covered the fight already. Yes, there was a fight but we know nothing about who escalated the confrontation to that point, or what was said and done to cause the fight. The evidence is consistent with what Zimmerman said, it's also consistent with a variety of alternative scenarios.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Zimmerman's first 911 call said a young man was "acting suspiciously," "walking in circles," standing in front of the houses, looking at the houses, "and it's raining." It was the fact that he was stopping to look at houses in the rain that seemed suspicious to Zimmerman. He didn't mention his color at first, but when the 911 operator asked him to name a race, he said, "He looks black," sounding unsure, so that didn't seem to be a big factor to Zimmerman. If Trayvon had been walking purposely from one point to another, as most people do when it's raining, I doubt if Zimmerman would have been suspicious.

Trayvon was 5'11 to Zimmerman's 5'7" and much more muscular and fit looking so it's not surprising Zimmerman was losing the fight. Here's a picture I ran into while looking for the 911 call. In the police car.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Zimmerman's first 911 call said a young man was "acting suspiciously," "walking in circles," standing in front of the houses, looking at the houses, "and it's raining." It was the fact that he was stopping to look at houses in the rain that seemed suspicious to Zimmerman.
Interestingly the copy of the transcript that Wikipedia directed me to says something different. Just walking in the rain, looking around. No mention of walking in circles or standing in front of any houses. Of course, there could have been another call to the police dispatcher which says something different ...

quote:
Trayvon was 5'11 to Zimmerman's 5'7" and much more muscular and fit looking so it's not surprising Zimmerman was losing the fight. Here's a picture I ran into while looking for the 911 call. In the police car.
And, once again, that there was a fight and Zimmerman got his head bashes on the concrete is not in dispute by anyone. It's the events that lead upto the fight which are unknown to anyone (except Zimmerman and Martin, who can't tell us his version).
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
This renewed discussion was sparked by Zimmerman trying to auction off the gun he used to shoot Martin. The gun is Zimmerman's property, and he wasn't convicted of a crime involving it. I don't think there's any question that he has the legal right to sell his property via any legal means, including auction.

But morally? Let's assume for the moment that Zimmerman's version of events is accurate, that he used his gun to defend himself, and was acquitted in a heavily publicized trial. In those circumstances, can anyone defend the morality of trying to auction off the gun for many times its face value?

Because I can't. You could turn this into the most clear-cut righteous self-defense shooting imaginable, and I still couldn't justify making money off it.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It certainly demonstrates an, errmm, interesting view of life.

I hope I'm never in the position of having killed, or even significantly harmed anyone. But, I would hope that one of the feelings I would have would be remorse, that my actions had contributed to someone being killed. Even if I believed in the right to bear arms, and use a gun in self defence (and, to be clear I believe in neither) and had used a gun to kill someone else who was armed and intent on harm to others I'd like to believe that having taken a life, even in those circumstances, would be a deeply traumatic experience.

To turn the death of an unarmed innocent kid into a cause, to want to have anything to do with the weapon and seek to make money from the incident just doesn't seem to be something a rational human being would do. It's like Zimmerman isn't in contact with reality. And, the reality is that he was mistaken in thinking Martin was planning to rob the houses in the neighbourhood, mistaken that Martin was doing anything other than walking home from the store. The courts acquitted him of any criminal charge, a judgement that effectively says that the mistake was one that anyone could make. That doesn't alter the fact that he was mistaken. Yet, Zimmerman is acting as though he was a hero protecting the homes of his neighbours, and seems to have no remorse over the mistake he made, nor even any willingness to accept he was mistaken.

It's all just damn odd.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
... If Trayvon had been walking purposely from one point to another, as most people do when it's raining, I doubt if Zimmerman would have been suspicious. ...
Oh, FFS. Twilight, are you buying or selling this crap? Both? You really believe that "He looks black" means Zimmerman didn't know or care about his victim's race? What fucking planet were you born on? Alpha Gullibulus?

Mr. Martin was talking on his cellphone. Ever seen a teenager walk while using a cell phone? A colleague has a great story about a student using a cell phone who literally walked into the front end of her PARKED truck, even after she had honked the horn several times.

Zimmerman is a racist, sexist, violent, cowardly piece of human garbage who harassed an innocent, unarmed BLACK man, disobeyed police instructions, provoked a confrontation, and then killed that innocent, unarmed BLACK man because he "felt threated". And now we can add obscenely greedy and cruel to his list of talents.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not in practice. In practice questioning the character of the victim is part of defence strategy.

Not sure exactly what you mean by that, nor what evidence there is behind it. But a criminal case is one between the government and the accused (with a very few minor exceptions).
There will often be a victim(s) of the crime. The character of the victim will sometime be used to mitigate the acts of the person on trial.
quote:

It flows from the duty of the sovereign to maintain internal peace.
Don't speak to me of principals, in principal the Soviet system was a utopia. Our legal systems have, in their descriptions just and noble language. However, in their practice, not so clearly.
quote:

You appear to have no understanding of basic criminal process.
That is probably true. But you've done nothing to highlight this.
quote:

Nor have you yet even attempted to answer my self-defence question.
Alan answered your flawed example quite well so I did not feel the need. You wish a direct answer?
What Alan said.

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

Trayvon was 5'11 to Zimmerman's 5'7" and much more muscular and fit looking so it's not surprising Zimmerman was losing the fight.[/URL]
Zimmerman was between 185 lb and 200 lb, Martin was 158 lb.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Just as well that 'walking around, looking at buildings' and 'in the rain' are not considered suspicious circumstances here in the sunny British Isles! The place would be a desolate waste of gunned down corpses!
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
Oh, I don't know. I paused outside the police station on Donegal Pass in about 1990 to marvel at its heavily-fortified frontage. It may have been raining, and I think I had a camera. A guy came out with a machine gun and rapidly established 'you're not from round here, are you?!'
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
selling this crap? Both? You really believe that "He looks black" means Zimmerman didn't know or care about his victim's race? What fucking planet were you born on? Alpha Gullibulus?

Mr. Martin was talking on his cellphone. Ever seen a teenager walk while using a cell phone? A colleague has a great story about a student using a cell phone who literally walked into the front end of her PARKED truck, even after she had honked the horn several times.

Zimmerman is a racist, sexist, violent, cowardly piece of human garbage who harassed an innocent, unarmed BLACK man, disobeyed police instructions, provoked a confrontation, and then killed that innocent, unarmed BLACK man because he "felt threated". And now we can add obscenely greedy and cruel to his list of talents.
I find this thread rather frightening.

Just because most of us know that teenagers tend to wander around in circles while talking on their cells, you just assume that this rather stupid man who is out purposely looking for the person who has been burglarizing the houses, is supposed to look at the figure of a man in the rain and think "teenager talking," and not, "the bad guy I'm looking for and hoping to find."

When I said that if Martin had been walking he probably wouldn't have caused Zimmerman to be suspicious, I was guessing about how Zimmerman was probably thinking not saying that his conclusions were correct. Mostly I was pointing out to Alan that Martin was not killed because he was "walking while black," because he wasn't doing that much walking. But putting yourself in Zimmerman's head for a minute is something you are unwilling to do except to make up things like "He said the word, "black," he's a racist!"

Zimmerman answers the the 911 operator's question, "What race is he?" with "He looks black." and so you're sure he's a racist. Do you think he should have lied and said he looked white?

Zimmerman may well be a coward. I tend to think there's an element of that in many people who don't feel safe without a gun. He has proved himself violent. But I don't see the evidence of racist and sexist in this event.

A few days ago I watched ESPN's "30-30" documentary "Fantastic Lies." It's about the year of misery the Duke Lacrosse team went through because a woman accused three of them of rape. The accusations led to their coach being fired, the boys being suspended and arrested, jail time, their parent's lives put on hold, all in spite of the fact that there was no evidence against them and quite a bit of evidence that they couldn't possibly have committed the crime.

Yet everyone from Nancy Grace and Joy Behar, to the entire population of the town was calling for their blood, columnists in major newspapers across America demanded that they confess and other people at the party "come forward," against them even though they had nothing to tell.

There were marches and protests and signs waved day after day raving with hatred toward the boys. Why? Because the falsely accused we're male, rich and white and the "victim" was female, poor and as you would say, BLACK.

I'm sure, even now and for the rest of their lives there will be people like you convinced that they are guilty because the "victim" was black and little things like evidence don't count. I found the whole thing chilling while it was happening and I still do. To me an ugly lynch mob is an ugly lynch mob no matter what anyone's color is.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
lilBuddha , I notice that you're already backing away from your original post. What was In practice questioning the character of the victim is part of defence strategy has now turned into The character of the victim will sometime be used to mitigate the acts of the person on trial, a clear indication that you are unable to produce the evidence I asked for.

But then, that's not surprising. Your knowledge of political theory is as bad as your spelling.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
The other side of all the racial stuff, of course, is that Zimmerman would not have been labelled WHITE, right up until when he killed a BLACK man.

That to me was one of the most mystifying things about the case. Zimmerman is, in normal American parlance, Hispanic. You can bet your bottom dollar if he'd had any kind of interaction with a person of Northern European heritage, he would've been Hispanic.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
This renewed discussion was sparked by Zimmerman trying to auction off the gun he used to shoot Martin. The gun is Zimmerman's property, and he wasn't convicted of a crime involving it. I don't think there's any question that he has the legal right to sell his property via any legal means, including auction.

But morally? Let's assume for the moment that Zimmerman's version of events is accurate, that he used his gun to defend himself, and was acquitted in a heavily publicized trial. In those circumstances, can anyone defend the morality of trying to auction off the gun for many times its face value?

Because I can't. You could turn this into the most clear-cut righteous self-defense shooting imaginable, and I still couldn't justify making money off it.
I can't either. I think it's a dumb move.

The only thing I can say in his favour about it is that his choice of cause to support... it comes across as him being upset and angry that Trayvon Martin became the poster-boy for Black Lives Matter, and I think that anger is pretty understandable from his point of view. If you spend your life hearing how the person who banged your head into the concrete was a sweet innocent victim, you'd be upset.

But it's still a dumb move.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There will often be a victim(s) of the crime. The character of the victim will sometime be used to mitigate the acts of the person on trial.
And often there won't be one person who was wearing a white hat and one who was wearing a black hat. Do you always think the person who died was the victim? Do you think that's necessarily an appropriate label?

The character of the victim... there are just so many problems inherent in that phrase. The Zimmerman case is more about the actions of your "victim", not his character. As are the two cases I've mentioned more than once on this forum (one of them in this thread recently) where people I've had moderately close connections to have been acquitted of murder, on self-defence grounds.

Let me wheel out the second, because it ended up with an agreed set of facts. And that agreed set of facts involved the man who's now dead attacking the other guy. The other guy fought back, got him in a headlock, squeezed too hard and killed his attacker.

Which one are you going to label the victim?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I'm not sure it makes any sense to call someone a "victim" without saying what they are a victim of. Someone is a victim of rape, or murder, or mistaken identity, or cancer, but not just a victim simpliciter. So in your scenario, the one person was a victim of battery, and the other a victim of manslaughter. There is no need to choose just one of them to be the victim. That's meaningless oversimplification and perhaps one could say a category error.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not sure it makes any sense to call someone a "victim" without saying what they are a victim of. Someone is a victim of rape, or murder, or mistaken identity, or cancer, but not just a victim simpliciter. So in your scenario, the one person was a victim of battery, and the other a victim of manslaughter. There is no need to choose just one of them to be the victim. That's meaningless oversimplification and perhaps one could say a category error.
But in orfeo's example, surely there's no manslaughter? There's an assault, and there's a lawful killing in self-defense. And if there's no crime, there isn't anything to be a victim of.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not sure it makes any sense to call someone a "victim" without saying what they are a victim of. Someone is a victim of rape, or murder, or mistaken identity, or cancer, but not just a victim simpliciter. So in your scenario, the one person was a victim of battery, and the other a victim of manslaughter. There is no need to choose just one of them to be the victim. That's meaningless oversimplification and perhaps one could say a category error.
But in orfeo's example, surely there's no manslaughter? There's an assault, and there's a lawful killing in self-defense. And if there's no crime, there isn't anything to be a victim of.
Someone died. Even if the killer was acting in self-defense, someone died. So maybe the attacker wasn't victim of manslaughter, if self-defense rules out manslaughter, but he was still a victim of a killing. As I listed above, you can be a victim of cancer (which is not a crime) or a victim of mistaken identity (which is not a crime) so your claim that if there is no crime there is no victim is refuted.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Someone died. Even if the killer was acting in self-defense, someone died. So maybe the attacker wasn't victim of manslaughter, if self-defense rules out manslaughter, but he was still a victim of a killing. As I listed above, you can be a victim of cancer (which is not a crime) or a victim of mistaken identity (which is not a crime) so your claim that if there is no crime there is no victim is refuted.
I take your point about being able to have crimeless victims, but I think that the word "victim" carries an implication of innocence that isn't really appropriate when used to describe an assailant that was killed in self-defence.

We don't usually describe soldiers killed in battle as "victims" unless you're trying to make a point about the immorality of war. If two boxers get in the ring to fight, and one gets knocked out, we call him the "loser" but not a "victim". Even if he dies, he doesn't become a victim (unless, like the war case, you're making a point about injuries in contact sports).
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
lilBuddha , I notice that you're already backing away from your original post. What was In practice questioning the character of the victim is part of defence strategy has now turned into The character of the victim will sometime be used to mitigate the acts of the person on trial,
The only way one of these "turned" is to assume the first statement was meant as an always. And you know what they say about when you assume: It makes an ass out of you.

quote:

a clear indication that you are unable to produce the evidence I asked for.
It was actually me assuming more intelligence on your part than is obviously warranted. My apologies for the undue burden I have placed on your inadequate mental resources.
An example.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The other side of all the racial stuff, of course, is that Zimmerman would not have been labelled WHITE, right up until when he killed a BLACK man.

That to me was one of the most mystifying things about the case. Zimmerman is, in normal American parlance, Hispanic. You can bet your bottom dollar if he'd had any kind of interaction with a person of Northern European heritage, he would've been Hispanic.
First, Hispanic is anything from black skin, black hair and black eyes to white skin white hair and blue yes. It does not denote any specific, physical characteristics.
Second, yes, race relationships are contextual everywhere,* especially in America.

*Everywhere I have encountered.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And often there won't be one person who was wearing a white hat and one who was wearing a black hat.
Of course.
quote:

The character of the victim... there are just so many problems inherent in that phrase. The Zimmerman case is more about the actions of your "victim", not his character.
No, it is about one interpretation of the interaction between Zimmerman and Martin.
quote:

Let me wheel out the second, because it ended up with an agreed set of facts. And that agreed set of facts involved the man who's now dead attacking the other guy. The other guy fought back, got him in a headlock, squeezed too hard and killed his attacker.

Which one are you going to label the victim?
The dead guy is the victim. They both share the blame for the death. Though there could be debate on whether or not the blame is equal.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I take your point about being able to have crimeless victims, but I think that the word "victim" carries an implication of innocence that isn't really appropriate when used to describe an assailant that was killed in self-defence.
You can of course think whatever you want, and I would be the last person to take that from you. Or orfeo, much as I begrudge him anything. But the question is, how do the majority of people in this particular language community use the word?

Let's say somebody stupfs somebody else's wife, and the aggrieved husband kills the adulterous third wheel. He wasn't innocent by any stretch. But he still was a victim.

I could spin out these stories all day of course.

"Victim" and "innocent" are not coterminous. Otherwise "innocent victim" as a phrase wouldn't exist, or would be universally recognized as a redundancy.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not sure it makes any sense to call someone a "victim" without saying what they are a victim of. Someone is a victim of rape, or murder, or mistaken identity, or cancer, but not just a victim simpliciter. So in your scenario, the one person was a victim of battery, and the other a victim of manslaughter. There is no need to choose just one of them to be the victim. That's meaningless oversimplification and perhaps one could say a category error.
But in orfeo's example, surely there's no manslaughter? There's an assault, and there's a lawful killing in self-defense. And if there's no crime, there isn't anything to be a victim of.
Someone died. Even if the killer was acting in self-defense, someone died. So maybe the attacker wasn't victim of manslaughter, if self-defense rules out manslaughter, but he was still a victim of a killing. As I listed above, you can be a victim of cancer (which is not a crime) or a victim of mistaken identity (which is not a crime) so your claim that if there is no crime there is no victim is refuted.
He in fact offered a guilty plea to manslaughter and two judges refused to accept it, and entered an acquittal instead.

Both the trial judge, and then an appeal judge, said that it wasn't manslaughter because on the agreed facts it was self-defence. James' profound subjective sense of guilt notwithstanding.

You are right that someone died. The problem is that many people take that bare fact and leap to conclusions about what that implies.

And while I want to emphasise that you are not jumping to conclusions in that way, I still find it not all that satisfactory to describe the guy who attacked the other guy a "victim". He was killed. I'm not sure that makes him a "victim of a killing" unless we reduce all unfortunate events to things that people are "victims" of regardless of the cause of their misfortune.

[ 15. May 2016, 03:01: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

Let's say somebody stupfs somebody else's wife, and the aggrieved husband kills the adulterous third wheel. He wasn't innocent by any stretch. But he still was a victim.
Sure - but the adultery and the revenge of the cuckolded husband are separate actions. The logic of a self-defence claim is that the self-defence is not separate from the attack it's defending against, but is a necessary consequence of it.

Mr. Cuckold didn't need to kill his wife's lover. If it was in the heat of the moment, he'd probably manage to be convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. He could have chosen to walk away and file for divorce.

The logic of self-defence (at least in a rational jurisdiction) is that the victim of the initial assault is left with no other reasonable options. In order to prevent his further injury or death, he is forced to use reasonable force to protect himself, and there's some probability that the outcome of that reasonable force is the death of his attacker.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm not sure that makes him a "victim of a killing" unless we reduce all unfortunate events to things that people are "victims" of regardless of the cause of their misfortune.
It's really a question of whether you describe someone as a victim when he is the cause of his own misfortune. If you go out drinking, drive home, wrap your car around a lamppost and die, are you "a victim of drink-driving"? If you're mugging someone at knife-point, slip, and impale yourself on your own weapon, are you "a victim of knife crime"?

If you tell your buddy "here, hold my beer" and shoot a vehicle full of explosives at close range, are you a victim of anything other than your own stupidity?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

Let's say somebody stupfs somebody else's wife, and the aggrieved husband kills the adulterous third wheel. He wasn't innocent by any stretch. But he still was a victim.
Sure - but the adultery and the revenge of the cuckolded husband are separate actions. The logic of a self-defence claim is that the self-defence is not separate from the attack it's defending against, but is a necessary consequence of it.
For something to be a consequence of something else, they must be separable. You can't have it both ways.

quote:
The logic of self-defence (at least in a rational jurisdiction) is that the victim of the initial assault is left with no other reasonable options.
That it is the only reasonable option doesn't mean it's not an option, i.e. it wasn't opted for. He could have chosen to die, however unreasonable that may be. It's what martyrs do. As such they are separable events with separable motivations and agents.

quote:
In order to prevent his further injury or death, he is forced to use reasonable force to protect himself, and there's some probability that the outcome of that reasonable force is the death of his attacker.
Yep. But HE used the reasonable force. His assailant did not. I think you're eliding two very different things: blame, and agency.

[ 15. May 2016, 03:32: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Well, a quick google gives this definition of victim: "a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action."

If someone shoots me and I die, I have died as the result of an event or action. Whether or not it's my fault doesn't enter into the definition.

So, yeah, the definition you mock, orfeo, seems to be what the word means.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I don't believe I was mocking anything. Far from it. You're causing me to wrestle with the meaning of the word.

That you can find a dictionary definition where fault doesn't enter it does not convince me that in general usage, fault or (lack of fault) isn't a factor. You're right that we have the phrase "innocent victim", but when's the last time you ever heard someone talk about a "guilty victim"? If the word "victim" is neutral we should hear about "guilty victims" as well.

[ 15. May 2016, 03:44: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
lilBuddha , I notice that you're already backing away from your original post. What was In practice questioning the character of the victim is part of defence strategy has now turned into The character of the victim will sometime be used to mitigate the acts of the person on trial,
The only way one of these "turned" is to assume the first statement was meant as an always. And you know what they say about when you assume: It makes an ass out of you.

quote:

a clear indication that you are unable to produce the evidence I asked for.
It was actually me assuming more intelligence on your part than is obviously warranted. My apologies for the undue burden I have placed on your inadequate mental resources.
An example.
The first of your statements is clearly on an "always" basis. You then backed away from that, and still the only evidence that you can come up with is one example.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That you can find a dictionary definition where fault doesn't enter it does not convince me that in general usage, fault or (lack of fault) isn't a factor.
What do you think dictionaries do? They record usage of words. I doubt very much the definitions built into Google are prescriptive.

Anyway I've given my evidence. Let's hear yours. Put up or shut up.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The first of your statements is clearly on an "always" basis. You then backed away from that, and still the only evidence that you can come up with is one example.
Are you really this stupid or is your candy-arse sore because I suggest that the legal profession doesn't always act with justice or perfection?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
On another incident, Holy Hell!
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That you can find a dictionary definition where fault doesn't enter it does not convince me that in general usage, fault or (lack of fault) isn't a factor.
What do you think dictionaries do? They record usage of words. I doubt very much the definitions built into Google are prescriptive.

Anyway I've given my evidence. Let's hear yours. Put up or shut up.
My primary piece of evidence is the lack of guilty victims.

Failing that, I'll go with the Merriam-Webster full definition which refers to " one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent". Emphasis on acted on. A couple of other definitions also emphasised the passivity element of being a victim. It's something that happens to you, not something that you cause.

[ 15. May 2016, 05:05: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
On another incident, Holy Hell!
2 instances! Wow, real proof of your statement.

Learnt to spell yet?
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
On another incident, Holy Hell!
This being the Sabbath, may we all join together in hating this guy.

It's so bad that leaving the child with a loaded gun wasn't even the worst part. Leaving her alone in the desert without water may have been even worse. Did he think she was going to shoot rattlers? Then he was having a cheeseburger before telling anyone where she was. Why are demented, moronic grandparents so often left in charge of children? We need free day care on the same bill as new gun laws.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

It's so bad that leaving the child with a loaded gun wasn't even the worst part.
There is no good part to his behaviour. That such people exist is no longer surprising, it is just depressing.

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
2 instances! Wow, real proof of your statement.

Learnt to spell yet?
I considered explaining why this post has naught to do with the other, but you quite obviously do not have the mental faculty to process the explanation. I wish I believed in the power of prayer, because it is quite clear your clients need all they can get. I fervently hope your current mental state is a recent development, otherwise it is a harsh indictment of the ABA and the Australian legal system entire.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Why are demented, moronic grandparents so often left in charge of children?
For the same reason they're allowed to have guns.

If the news media really wanted to serve the public good, they would cease all talk about Trump and devote their coverage to all incidents of gun violence, every day. There would easily be enough material to fill their air time.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Oh, I don't know. I paused outside the police station on Donegal Pass in about 1990 to marvel at its heavily-fortified frontage. It may have been raining, and I think I had a camera. A guy came out with a machine gun and rapidly established 'you're not from round here, are you?!'
Hehe! Well, I suppose Norn Irn is, or was then, a bit of an exception! At least you got the 'friendly', albeit heavily armed, approach from the security forces.

Sad reflection, I spent a lot of time in Donegall Pass during the 80's and I don't even recall what the police station looked like, so used to the fortifications across town I must've become. Even now I have to remind myself I live in the part of the UK that uses armed police and it's completely normal!
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Failing that, I'll go with the Merriam-Webster full definition which refers to " one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent". Emphasis on acted on. A couple of other definitions also emphasised the passivity element of being a victim. It's something that happens to you, not something that you cause.
Yes. Someone who is choked to death is acted on. I can't see how you can define it otherwise. Whether or not they brought on that action through their own previous action matters not a jot. Choking is an action.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
2 instances! Wow, real proof of your statement.

Learnt to spell yet?
I considered explaining why this post has naught to do with the other, but you quite obviously do not have the mental faculty to process the explanation. I wish I believed in the power of prayer, because it is quite clear your clients need all they can get. I fervently hope your current mental state is a recent development, otherwise it is a harsh indictment of the ABA and the Australian legal system entire.
What explanation? You haven't given any so far of your making a general assertion, then attempting to support it with 2 instances.

Don't get me wrong. I'm very sorry for you. You've obviously had a shit-house education - witness your spelling. You agree that you have no idea of political theory, but still you're trying to push an argument which requires some understanding of law and government.

What ABA? The American Bar Association?
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Give it a rest, Gee D. That's twice you've mentioned LilBuddha's spelling while having a glaring mistake in your own post. You don't start sentences with "2" rather than two. If we start getting pedantic about spelling and grammar I'll have to leave.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
What explanation? You haven't given any so far of your making a general assertion, then attempting to support it with 2 instances.
Actually, only one. But that you say two shows that you are too lazy to read and/or not able to comprehend.


quote:

Don't get me wrong. I'm very sorry for you. You've obviously had a shit-house education - witness your spelling.
Though there can be a link between spelling and education, it is not a strict link. What you are probably referring to are spelling variants or typos. Oh, typos. Have the grandchild who is typing your quill pen responses into the computer explain what typos are.

quote:

You agree that you have no idea of political theory, but still you're trying to push an argument which requires some understanding of law and government.
Actually, it does not. The argument I am making, the inequity of application of justice,* merely requires observation.

The lack of challenge makes trading insults with you incredibly boring, so continuing that is a waste. And since you make assertions without even reading entire posts, much less the links therein, summoning an effort to demonstrate my points is not worth even a minimal effort.


*A specific flavour of, in this instance.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Gee D, any idiot could see LIlB was introducing the " Holy Hell" story as a separate subject, so you are only giving cause for idiots to feel sorry for you.

Heere hav a fiw typos
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
lilBuddha, they are not typos, they are simple mis-spellings. Obviously your education was severely lacking - as was Kelly Alves (a surprise there, one I'd never have suspected).

My education was also lacking. I had not learned that if a white man kills a black man, the white man is automatically guilty of murder - getting the death penalty for his crime in those jurisdictions still barbaric enough to retain that.

[ 16. May 2016, 08:01: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
lilBuddha, they are not typos, they are simple mis-spellings. Obviously your education was severely lacking - as was Kelly Alves (a surprise there, one I'd never have suspected). [...]
Gee, honestly. You might find that there's an apostrophe missing after Kelly Alves, like so: Kelly Alves'.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I find it rather redundant to refer to a surprise as something one hadn't suspected. Duh.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Gee D, get the fuck over yourself. You are so clearly and overwhelmingly lacking in almost - no, probably every - faculty that is required for public discourse that a box of angry wasps would be a better gift than seeing your gurning avatar on this thread.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Wesley J is correct - but the rest of you????
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
And why is an apostrophe being grafted onto Kelly's last name?

ETA: Never mind, I just figured it out.

[ 16. May 2016, 12:13: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Wesley J is correct - but the rest of you????
You should spell out two. You were incorrect twice, once in the body of your post and once while beginning a sentence, which is worse.
Two or 2?

Everyone but you knew that LilBuddha's "Holy Hell" post was separate from the Zimmerman argument. You would have been clued in about that if you had read my post where I suggested we put aside our Zimmerman fight to join together hating the "Holy Hell" man.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

My education was also lacking. I had not learned that if a white man kills a black man, the white man is automatically guilty of murder
Well, given that no one has proposed this in any way shape or form on this thread or any other thread relating to the Zimmerman case on this forum, it appears that you are reading what you wish into this. Not at all surprising given your interaction on this thread thus far.
If it will assuage your precious little feelings, I will allow that the the entire legal system is not completely fucked. Though your behaviour here is making that a difficult proposition to defend.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
lilBuddha still has not admitted the errors to which I referred; that bespeaks either ignorance or dishonesty. Use of a numeral instead of spelling out words is required here under the Uniform Procedure Rules and is therefore a common practice amongst lawyers.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
lilBuddha still has not admitted the errors to which I referred; that bespeaks either ignorance or dishonesty.
Spoken like an ignorant, incompetent or dishonest lawyer.
There are other explanations than those two(2,II,dhŕ,dos,deux,اثنان)*, but will it help pry your head out of your arse if I say Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa! I typed principal instead of principle! Oh, the horror!

quote:

Use of a numeral instead of spelling out words is required here under the Uniform Procedure Rules and is therefore a common practice amongst lawyers.
They are not required here which is where this discussion is taking place.

*All meaning two.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Well done at last! You could have saved everyone the boredom of reading your posts for the last few days. Now what you have to do is realise that while you may have reached a different conclusion, a properly constituted court, having heard all the evidence, decided that Zimmerman was not guilty.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Gee D: Now what you have to do is realise that while you may have reached a different conclusion, a properly constituted court, having heard all the evidence, decided that Zimmerman was not guilty.
What this tells me is how stupid and sickening the laws in this jurisdiction are.

[ 16. May 2016, 21:59: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
It is also the law here in Australia, as witness this decision from the High Court:

The question to be asked in the end is quite simple. It is whether the accused believed upon reasonable grounds that it was necessary in self-defence to do what he did. If he had that belief and there were reasonable grounds for it, or if the jury is left in reasonable doubt about the matter, then he is entitled to an acquittal. Stated in this form, the question is one of general application and is not limited to cases of homicide.

It used be the law in England (but may have since been changed, strange things have happened in the development of the law there over the last 50 years) and I'd imagine also in Canada and NZ. If someone is trying to strangle you and in defence you hit that person over the head with a bottle, why are you guilty of murder?

If an accused in NSW uses excessive force in self-defence, the old common law rule that that reduces the finding of guilty of murder to guilty of manslaughter has now been re-instated in the Crimes Act.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Gee D: It is also the law here in Australia, as witness this decision from the High Court:
Well, that's stupid also. A civilised law for self-defence also includes that the person claiming it must have done anything reasonable within his power to prevent a situation where self-defence was necessary.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The logic of the self-defence claim, especially when coupled with a stand your ground law, is that it would be relatively easy to set out to kill someone and get away with it. If (hypothetically) you wanted to kill someone, then go to Florida (or somewhere else with a stand your ground law) and find someone walking home on their own and approach them with a load of insults (maybe "hey! you moron! You can't even get the difference between 'principal' and 'principle' right!") and provoke them into attacking you, let them land the first punch so you have good physical evidence that you were being attacked and then draw your gun and blow them away.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Well done at last! You could have saved everyone the boredom of reading your posts for the last few days. Now what you have to do is realise that while you may have reached a different conclusion, a properly constituted court, having heard all the evidence, decided that Zimmerman was not guilty.
I've not said they didn't. If you read any of the thread, instead of getting your pedantic knickers in a wad about spelling, you would know this.
There can be more than one interpretation of the same evidence. Both can meet rational and legal requirement.
Also, laws & legal verdicts can be unjust. These are mainly what is under discussion here.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Gee D: It is also the law here in Australia, as witness this decision from the High Court:
Well, that's stupid also. A civilised law for self-defence also includes that the person claiming it must have done anything reasonable within his power to prevent a situation where self-defence was necessary.
The insistence on hindsight involved in your proposed rule is incredibly stupid.

Do you think that women ought to have done "reasonable" things to prevent themselves being raped, like not wearing "provocative" clothing? I bet you don't, but you're using the exact same logic.

[ 17. May 2016, 02:35: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
No, I don't think it needs hindsight. It just goes back to what a "reasonable person" may be expected to do.

So, X kills Y and claims self-defence, is a jury going to accept that claim?

The jury should (IMO, which is possibly different from what the law says) consider whether X deliberately and knowingly put himself into a situation where there was risk to his life, and whether he had any alternative. Which is a case of "would a reasonable person be a) expected to know that that situation was dangerous and b) be expected to know of other courses of action". As an extreme example, I doubt any jury would consider a self defence claim if a man dressed in a white sheet with conical hat walked into an all black neighbourhood and found himself assaulted.

The jury should (again IMO as above) also consider once a confrontation has begun whether a reasonable person might be expected to find a way to de-escalate the situation before reaching the point where X can reasonably be considered in fear of his life. That should include backing away, which is where a right to "stand your ground" is very unhelpful, because it's effectively saying that one needn't take the option of backing away from the confrontation.

It doesn't take hindsight. It does take the jury putting themselves in the position of X and asking whether based on what he knew or could reasonably be expected to know his actions were those of a reasonable person. And, of course, where the evidence is inconclusive then the jury should err on the side of caution and presume innocence.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Do you think that women ought to have done "reasonable" things to prevent themselves being raped, like not wearing "provocative" clothing? I bet you don't, but you're using the exact same logic.
You edited this in while I was responding to the first part of your post. And, it presents a powerful counter to what I just posted. Take my previous post as a work in progress while I try and determine whether I need to scrap or significantly modify it.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Gee D: It is also the law here in Australia, as witness this decision from the High Court:
Well, that's stupid also. A civilised law for self-defence also includes that the person claiming it must have done anything reasonable within his power to prevent a situation where self-defence was necessary.
The insistence on hindsight involved in your proposed rule is incredibly stupid.

Do you think that women ought to have done "reasonable" things to prevent themselves being raped, like not wearing "provocative" clothing? I bet you don't, but you're using the exact same logic.
I think LeRoc's phrasing might be less than ideal, but I agree with his general principle.
It is easy to describe scenarios where the person invoking self-defence could easily be participant in the escalation of violence to the point where deadly force felt necessary. The same cannot be said for rape.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Gee D: It is also the law here in Australia, as witness this decision from the High Court:
Well, that's stupid also. A civilised law for self-defence also includes that the person claiming it must have done anything reasonable within his power to prevent a situation where self-defence was necessary.
Does your opinion change in reading the last sentence of my post - that if resistance is necessary but excessive or disproportionate force is used, the finding should be guilty of manslaughter and not of murder?
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
@orfeo: We've already been over this rather extensively a couple of months/years ago; I'm caught up in a couple of things at the moment and am not very inclined to do it again. I'm also at an obvious disadvantage since I'm not a lawyer. Suffice to say that I disagree with Florida's laws on self-defence, and I don't accept Gee D saying "the court cleared Zimmerman" as proof that he did nothing wrong according to my moral standards.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Do you think that women ought to have done "reasonable" things to prevent themselves being raped, like not wearing "provocative" clothing? I bet you don't, but you're using the exact same logic.
You edited this in while I was responding to the first part of your post. And, it presents a powerful counter to what I just posted. Take my previous post as a work in progress while I try and determine whether I need to scrap or significantly modify it.
OK, still a work in progress.

1. I think there needs to be a wider ranging discussion of reasonableness. I don't consider any "reasonable man" would be 'provoked' by what a woman wears to the extent of committing rape. He may find her attractive, may be aroused, may spend the evening trying to chat her up, may get home and jerk off in the shower ... but to force himself on her is an unreasonable response. No reasonable man would condone such a response.

In different circumstances, would a confrontational response be considered reasonable in a way that rape isn't reasonable? In my extreme example of a man in Klan get-up walking into a black neighbourhood, would anyone consider an aggressive, even violent, response from the young, black men who live there unreasonable? And, if that would be the actions of a reasonable person, at what point between there and the clearly unreasonable act of rape is the line between reasonable and unreasonable?

2. There is a question of intent. A woman dressing to go out to a party is not dressing with the intent of being raped. She may be dressing to be attractive to men, she may simply be dressing because she likes the way she looks in that dress. If she is raped then that was the result of some jerk responding unreasonably in response to her attire, that was not the intent of the way she dressed.

Going back to my Klan guy. That could not be interpreted as anything other than a deliberate act with the intent to provoke an aggressive response (whether we consider that response to be a reasonable or unreasonable action).

In the context of self-defence, it must be a lot harder to convince a jury that an action was self-defence if the assault being defended against was the result of a deliberate intent to provoke than when the assault is the result of unintended provokation. And, much easier if the response was unreasonable rather than reasonable.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Gee D: It is also the law here in Australia, as witness this decision from the High Court:
Well, that's stupid also. A civilised law for self-defence also includes that the person claiming it must have done anything reasonable within his power to prevent a situation where self-defence was necessary.
The insistence on hindsight involved in your proposed rule is incredibly stupid.

Do you think that women ought to have done "reasonable" things to prevent themselves being raped, like not wearing "provocative" clothing? I bet you don't, but you're using the exact same logic.
I think LeRoc's phrasing might be less than ideal, but I agree with his general principle.
It is easy to describe scenarios where the person invoking self-defence could easily be participant in the escalation of violence to the point where deadly force felt necessary. The same cannot be said for rape.
You can bet your bottom dollar that someone has argued a woman participated in the escalation of sexual tension.

Fundamentally, it's an argument that runs along the lines of "it's your own fault you were attacked". In both cases.

Self-defence can only come up if there is some kind of evidence that you WERE attacked (which immediately gets rid of some the hypotheticals people fling around where someone merely says it was self-defence and there is no physical evidence to support that claim). So that's the territory we are in here: saying to people "okay, we accept that you were attacked, but somehow it is your own fault".

[ 17. May 2016, 05:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Self-defence ≠ rape.

For one thing, the roles of perpetrator and victim are reversed in the analogy you propose. That's a biggie.

In the earlier discussions we had about this, I cited examples from self-defence laws of various European countries which include the clause that the claimant should have taken reasonable measures to prevent the situation. There are no such clauses in these countries' laws about rape. I don't see why if there is a clause in a law about one thing, the clause also needs to be in a law about another subject.

Your analogy with rape is going nowhere.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The law in England and Wales on self defence and the prevention of crime refers to reasonable force and good faith in deciding whether an action is self defence

quote:
However, it is important to ensure that all those acting reasonably and in good faith to defend themselves, their family, their property or in the prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders are not prosecuted for such action.
<snip>
When reviewing cases involving assertions of self-defence or action in the prevention of crime/preservation of property, prosecutors should be aware of the balance to be struck:
There is always the case of Tony Martin, a Norfolk farmer, who was jailed and served three years of an eight year sentence for shooting and killing a teenage burglar on his property.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Do you think that women ought to have done "reasonable" things to prevent themselves being raped, like not wearing "provocative" clothing? I bet you don't, but you're using the exact same logic.
You edited this in while I was responding to the first part of your post. And, it presents a powerful counter to what I just posted. Take my previous post as a work in progress while I try and determine whether I need to scrap or significantly modify it.
OK, still a work in progress.

1. I think there needs to be a wider ranging discussion of reasonableness. I don't consider any "reasonable man" would be 'provoked' by what a woman wears to the extent of committing rape. He may find her attractive, may be aroused, may spend the evening trying to chat her up, may get home and jerk off in the shower ... but to force himself on her is an unreasonable response. No reasonable man would condone such a response.

In different circumstances, would a confrontational response be considered reasonable in a way that rape isn't reasonable? In my extreme example of a man in Klan get-up walking into a black neighbourhood, would anyone consider an aggressive, even violent, response from the young, black men who live there unreasonable? And, if that would be the actions of a reasonable person, at what point between there and the clearly unreasonable act of rape is the line between reasonable and unreasonable?

2. There is a question of intent. A woman dressing to go out to a party is not dressing with the intent of being raped. She may be dressing to be attractive to men, she may simply be dressing because she likes the way she looks in that dress. If she is raped then that was the result of some jerk responding unreasonably in response to her attire, that was not the intent of the way she dressed.

Going back to my Klan guy. That could not be interpreted as anything other than a deliberate act with the intent to provoke an aggressive response (whether we consider that response to be a reasonable or unreasonable action).

In the context of self-defence, it must be a lot harder to convince a jury that an action was self-defence if the assault being defended against was the result of a deliberate intent to provoke than when the assault is the result of unintended provokation. And, much easier if the response was unreasonable rather than reasonable.
I think you need to tease out the difference between an attack being understandable and it being justified.

But more importantly, I think that you're heading down a direction that is focusing on whether the attacker would have a defence of provocation, and I'm not sure why that would be relevant to the case of the person who was attacked. It's a different person on trial.

Okay, so let's just take it as a given that there are situations where an attack IS "justified", whatever that means. Do you therefore lose your right to fight back? Because that's what self-defence is about as the law stands. Not about whether or not the person had reason to attack you, but about whether you fought back in an acceptable way.

A trial is between the person on trial and the State. Not between the two people involved in the fight. And I think you, like some other people, have fallen into the trap of thinking there has to be some zero sum game balancing which of the two people was in the right. If the attacker was sufficiently provoked, they'd have a defence of provocation if prosecuted by the State. I don't see why that should negate the ability of the other person to claim self-defence when prosecuted by the State.

There's no rule that one or the other of the two people ought to be jailed because they were in the wrong compared to the other person. That would work when one sues the other. It doesn't work in criminal law.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
In the earlier discussions we had about this, I cited examples from self-defence laws of various European countries which include the clause that the claimant should have taken reasonable measures to prevent the situation.
Sorry, but I don't recall you citing any such laws. I recall you citing your own moral code frequently. Maybe you did cite laws, but I don't recall it. So you'll have to cite them again.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
orfeo, I just cited such a law, the law in England and Wales just above your last posts - we cross posted.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
orfeo: Sorry, but I don't recall you citing any such laws. I recall you citing your own moral code frequently. Maybe you did cite laws, but I don't recall it. So you'll have to cite them again.
I don't have to do anything. In earlier discussions, I made the effort to look up the laws of at least three European countries, translating them into English for you. That you forgot about this tells more about you than about me.

The only thing you are doing is pulling a stupid analogy with rape out of your arse, which you can't make work.

[ 17. May 2016, 05:45: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Actually it's your claim that the roles of victim and perpetrator are reversed which is stupid. Really?

That's a damn wild generalisation, fuelled no doubt by a determination to have Zimmerman on the guilty side of the ledger. But have a think about every other person who has pleaded self-defence and who falls into your "did everything reasonable" category. Do you want to label them as perpetrators?

No? Well, come back to me when you've come up with something not so black and white. All credit to Alan, he is at least trying to develop something more coherent.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
orfeo, I just cited such a law, the law in England and Wales just above your last posts - we cross posted.
That is not such a law. It says you must act reasonably. It does not say you must do everything reasonable.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
@orfeo: We've already been over this rather extensively a couple of months/years ago; I'm caught up in a couple of things at the moment and am not very inclined to do it again. I'm also at an obvious disadvantage since I'm not a lawyer. Suffice to say that I disagree with Florida's laws on self-defence, and I don't accept Gee D saying "the court cleared Zimmerman" as proof that he did nothing wrong according to my moral standards.
I did not say that "the court cleared" Zimmerman. That is not the role of a court. I did say that the court found Zimmerman not guilty, which is the court's function. The jury found that the prosecution had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed a crime.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There is always the case of Tony Martin, a Norfolk farmer, who was jailed and served three years of an eight year sentence for shooting and killing a teenage burglar on his property.
I would consider Tony Martin to be poor example. He was convicted of murder, because he shot the two intruders in the back as they were fleeing. You can't claim self defence if the lad you kill is running away. Plus, his shot gun license had been revoked after opening fire on the vehicle of people he thought were scrumping, and the pump action gun he had would have been illegal anyway.

His conviction for murder was reduced to manslaughter on grounds of deminished responsibility, and nothing to do with any form of justification for his actions.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But more importantly, I think that you're heading down a direction that is focusing on whether the attacker would have a defence of provocation, and I'm not sure why that would be relevant to the case of the person who was attacked. It's a different person on trial.

Okay, so let's just take it as a given that there are situations where an attack IS "justified", whatever that means. Do you therefore lose your right to fight back? Because that's what self-defence is about as the law stands. Not about whether or not the person had reason to attack you, but about whether you fought back in an acceptable way.
I think a trial is usually a lot less clear cut. And, sometimes there might be an element of putting everyone involved on trial. I would think that anything that involves a fight between two people almost certainly has both people partly in the wrong. And, hence provocation can be an issue.

To go back to my extreme example of Klansman in black neighbourhood. Would you honestly consider any jury to acquit him of murder because they accept his plea of self-defence: "I was walking down the street when this nigger starting hollering and swearing, then grabbed a tire iron and rushed towards me. I had no choice but to pull my gun and blow him away, he was out to kill me." I can't imagine how any jury would not convict him of murder, since he clearly set out to engineer a situation where someone was going to get killed.

At the other extreme there are clear cases of self-defence. And in the middle there is a massive area of different shades of grey.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
To go back to my extreme example of Klansman in black neighbourhood. Would you honestly consider any jury to acquit him of murder because they accept his plea of self-defence: "I was walking down the street when this nigger starting hollering and swearing, then grabbed a tire iron and rushed towards me. I had no choice but to pull my gun and blow him away, he was out to kill me." I can't imagine how any jury would not convict him of murder, since he clearly set out to engineer a situation where someone was going to get killed.
The most extreme thing about your example is the total lack of physical evidence. Again.

But let's just say that the story is 100% true, and there's evidence that it's true. I don't know how a jury would behave because frankly juries can be stupid. But any judge worth their salt would throw the conviction out.

Walking down the street in racially provocative clothing doesn't justify being assaulted with a tire iron any more than walking down the street in sexually provocative clothing justifies a rape. And it sure as hell does not mean that you have to stand there and not fight back on the grounds you were "asking for it".

You simply cannot have rules of law that are only available for people you think are nice people, or sympathetic people. If a person is in fear of their life they are entitled to defend themselves, and that goes for people you disapprove of just as much as for people you sympathise with. The assault with a tire iron might be provoked but it isn't involuntary.

I don't know what you mean by "engineer a situation where someone was going to get killed". But murder requires intent to kill someone, and from what you're saying it doesn't sound like the same thing.

[ 17. May 2016, 10:08: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
orfeo, I just cited such a law, the law in England and Wales just above your last posts - we cross posted.
That is not such a law. It says you must act reasonably. It does not say you must do everything reasonable.
I want to expand on this because it's incredibly important.

The law on self-defence, including in England and Wales, says that your response to the threat that you face must be reasonable. There is at least one case in Australia right now where the issue is a lack of proportion between the threat and the response to it, and there've been others in the past. Self-defence doesn't justify any kind of response, only a reasonable one.

But what LeRoc proposes is an entirely different duty. Instead of having to respond reasonably to a threat, he wants to require people to behave reasonably to prevent the threat even arising.

Which is very different. It goes very much down the road of examining the victim of the threat to see whether they are to blame somehow for what happened to them. And however much people want to throw up examples of nasty people deliberately provoking an attack, such a rule wouldn't just be used to criticise nasty people. Lawyers would have a field day grilling all kinds of people about what they did to make themselves a target. It would greatly widen the scope of the enquiry, with various ways of suggesting that a person could have done X or Y to avoid the attack ever occurring.

It will expand from "what did you do when the attack occurred" to "what did you do before the attack occurred", and will open up the door to all sorts of suggestions about how someone should have known they would've been attacked. Again, I doubt this would stay confined to examples such as Alan's Klan member. Any time a person cites self-defence, it'll be suggested that they ought to have foreseen the attack and avoided it altogether, negating the need for self-defence.

And that's why I say it involves hindsight. Self-defence as it is currently formulated focuses on what you did in the actual situation of an attack. Self-defence as formulated by LeRoc starts suggesting you really ought to have foreseen the attack, which is all very well for a lawyer in a courtroom when everyone knows that an attack did in fact happen.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Gee D: I did not say that "the court cleared" Zimmerman. That is not the role of a court. I did say that the court found Zimmerman not guilty, which is the court's function.
Fuck it, we're not in a court house here, we're on an internet bulletin board. I'm not a legal expert, I'm not familiar with the legal system of any of your countries, English isn't my first language. Heck, I fall asleep watching Law & Order.

If all you're going to do is pick out the wrong legal term in my argument, then you know where to stick it.

All I'm saying is that there are better legal ways to handle self-defence than the fuck-up that is stand your ground. This isn't just my moral standing talking here, there are actually countries that make it work.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
orfeo: Sorry, but I don't recall you citing any such laws. I recall you citing your own moral code frequently. Maybe you did cite laws, but I don't recall it. So you'll have to cite them again.
I don't have to do anything. In earlier discussions, I made the effort to look up the laws of at least three European countries, translating them into English for you. That you forgot about this tells more about you than about me.
Yes, what it tells is that I don't have a perfect memory and that I'm skeptical about your claims, for two reasons. One, your repeated reliance on "I'm not a lawyer" to admit you often get these things a bit wrong. Two, my memory that in at least one lengthy conversation about the law you backed down completely after I got you understand what I was saying about the law. Which topic that conversation was on, I don't recall because my memory isn't perfect.

What your refusal to assist in jogging my memory tells, on the other hand, is very much about you. Which is that you're more interested in winning the argument than in being correct. If you can in fact point me (gasp! AGAIN! the horror of me not learning it the first time!) to these countries, then you will at least have your facts right, which I would think is a fairly important part of a genuinely meaningful argument about what is the right policy. It doesn't necessarily mean I will agree with you that it's the best policy, but I will at least agree with you that it is the chosen policy of some countries.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Gee D: I did not say that "the court cleared" Zimmerman. That is not the role of a court. I did say that the court found Zimmerman not guilty, which is the court's function.
Fuck it, we're not in a court house here, we're on an internet bulletin board. I'm not a legal expert, I'm not familiar with the legal system of any of your countries, English isn't my first language. Heck, I fall asleep watching Law & Order.

If all you're going to do is pick out the wrong legal term in my argument, then you know where to stick it.

All I'm saying is that there are better legal ways to handle self-defence than the fuck-up that is stand your ground. This isn't just my moral standing talking here, there are actually countries that make it work.
I was picking up your misquoting of what I said, and the manner in which you did it.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The most extreme thing about your example is the total lack of physical evidence. Again.
But, many crimes are prosecuted with minimal physical evidence. In this scenario there would be a tire iron in the dead mans fist, or very close by if he lost his grip as he died.

quote:
But let's just say that the story is 100% true, and there's evidence that it's true. I don't know how a jury would behave because frankly juries can be stupid. But any judge worth their salt would throw the conviction out.
So, you would consider that no crime has been committed? That there's a man lying dead in the road but legally no one is responsible for killing him?

quote:
I don't know what you mean by "engineer a situation where someone was going to get killed". But murder requires intent to kill someone, and from what you're saying it doesn't sound like the same thing.
Still sticking with my example, because my work in progress gets messed up in my head if I try to create another one. Klan-man thinks "I want to kill some nigger", gets his sheet out and tucks his gun in it's holster and sets out to nearby black neighbourhood knowing that it won't take long before he's noticed and gets an aggressive reaction. He might think he's odds-on for someone coming up to swear at him in his face, if not with a weapon. A little goading, and a fist gets thrown ... out comes the gun, bang and he's got what he wanted. With a get out of jail free card in being able to claim self defence. If lucky, several people with cell phones recording the whole thing (to make up for lack of physical evidence). If unlucky there's a black man with a gun who gets the shot in first.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, you would consider that no crime has been committed? That there's a man lying dead in the road but legally no one is responsible for killing him?
A large part of the motivation for this discussion, for me, is to kill off the notion that if someone dies someone has to be guilty of a crime. It is simplistic, and it is positively dangerous.

Is wearing a Klan outfit enough for some kind of crime of incitement or racial hatred? If so, convict him of that. And recall that your "victim" was probably guilty of assault.

EDIT: As for your elaboration of the example, it is indeed perfectly possible to create a version of the scenario where an intent to get a black person killed can be made out. Some additional facts such as those can get you there. But you cannot make it out from the bare fact of walking down the street in provocative clothing that you started with, any more than you can make out from a woman walking down the street in certain clothing that she wants to have sex with someone.

[ 17. May 2016, 11:45: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Whaddaya know?

(You made me go and search through Limbo. I'll never forgive you for this.)


quote:
Gee D: I was picking up your misquoting of what I said, and the manner in which you did it.
Yeah, I could have looked up your post again and properly quoted it. It was so stupid that I didn't bother.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Gee D: I was picking up your misquoting of what I said, and the manner in which you did it.
Yeah, I could have looked up your post again and properly quoted it. It was so stupid that I didn't bother.
If you can't understand the difference, then what's the use? I had thought that you were falling into error because you came from a background of a a completely different legal system. I now know that your method of argument is to be totally dishonest.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Whaddaya know?

(You made me go and search through Limbo. I'll never forgive you for this.)
That'd be the paragraph starting with the acronym for "I am not a lawyer". [Roll Eyes]

For the record nothing I've said in this conversation should be seen as support for "Stand Your Ground" laws. But neither do I see much in favour of "Duty to Retreat" requirements in the opposite direction.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Gee D: If you can't understand the difference, then what's the use?
For the purpose of this discussion, I don't care if the court "cleared" Zimmerman, if they "found him not guilty" or whatever. I don't know what the difference between these terms is, I just choose the term that sounds vaguely right from the moments I stayed awake during law-based television series.

What matters to me is: he's not in jail, and under a morally superior legal system he would be. That's what my discussion is about.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
orfeo: That'd be the paragraph starting with the acronym for "I am not a lawyer". [Roll Eyes]
Yes, and rightly so. There have been a couple of times already when I've wanted to bang you over the head: we're not in a court of law here.

If we were having a heated argument about international development cooperation, it's quite probable that you'd get a technical term wrong at some stage. At that point, it would be very easy for me to ignore the rest of your argument (which might very well be valid), turn my attention only to your technical error and bash you and that. However, that's not how I debate.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
If you're trying to have a discussion about the law, the fact that we're not in a court of law doesn't mean shit. I haven't been using technical terms, in fact I've been trying quite hard not to get technical at all.

But I'm not going to paper over conceptual distinctions just so you can feel better about yourself because the law is nothing BUT concepts, and nothing BUT distinctions between different rules.

If you feel upset that I'm not happy with reducing the law to stone-age ideas about how someone has to pay when someone else dies, then tough shit. If you can't keep up with the subtlety of the interaction of my views about carriage of guns (not in favour, but the legislators in Florida don't answer to me), proportionality of force to threat (in favour), duty to retreat/avoid (not in favour) and anything else that might come up, then I'm not going to dumb it down for you just because you keep repeating over and over and over how you're not a lawyer as if that's some kind of excuse.

You're a human being living in a complicated world, and the law is complicated because the world is complicated and because back in previous times people looked at simple little rules like the ones you can cope with and said "hang on, actually that produces rather unfair results in this situation, let's modify it". No, you're not a lawyer. I'm not asking you to use the kind of crap Latin that lawyers use. I'm asking you to wrestle with concepts, and when I criticise you or don't trust what you say it's because you can't keep concepts straight, not because you don't use the write official term.

So just get over yourself. Get over your desire to lump me and Gee D together (when the fuck did I get involved in your spat with him about not guilty vs cleared?). Get over your contempt for people who spend their professional lives considering and analysing concepts, and fucking stand up for why you think "he was asking for it" is a valid argument when it comes to physical violence.

[ 17. May 2016, 13:04: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Florida's "Stand your ground," law was not used by Zimmerman's lawyer. It didn't enter into it at all and the defense strategy would have been just the same in states without stand-your-ground.

That law says that the self-defense claimant does not have a duty to retreat before killing. It would be used in, say, a robber in the living room could be shot, even though the home owner could have climbed out the bedroom window. It's not morally very nice and I don't like it but there it is. It didn't apply to Zimmerman who had no option to retreat as he was flat on his back with Martin on top of him.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It didn't apply to Zimmerman who had no option to retreat as he was flat on his back with Martin on top of him.
Or so he says.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:



You simply cannot have rules of law that are only available for people you think are nice people, or sympathetic people. If a person is in fear of their life they are entitled to defend themselves, and that goes for people you disapprove of just as much as for people you sympathise with. The assault with a tire iron might be provoked but it isn't involuntary.

This says it all.

I think that's the whole story when the Zimmerman name pops up. Immediately people start saying incendiary things that don't actually apply in this case like, "murdered for walking while black" and "awful stand your ground laws." Next we're hearing, over and over, that we can't hear Martin's side of it because he's dead. Like that isn't the usual situation in a murder case.

Any mention that there simply wasn't enough proof that Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense and that he was not obligated to find witnesses for his side of things, always ends up with a list of Zimmerman's faults:

He was carrying a gun when he didn't have to. He didn't immediately jump back in his car when the police asked him to. He followed Trayvon. He asked Trayvon what he was doing. He's a racist, he's a sexist, he's insensitive, he's stupid, he's fat, he's white. None of which is against the law.

[ 17. May 2016, 13:28: Message edited by: Twilight ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you can't keep up with the subtlety of the interaction of my views about carriage of guns (not in favour, but the legislators in Florida don't answer to me), proportionality of force to threat (in favour), duty to retreat/avoid (not in favour)
I think where I'm struggling is the last two of those. Because, proportionality of force must also include withdrawing from the situation (if possible) so that no force needs to be used. So, if actions are to be proportional that may need to include a duty to withdraw or avoid if that is the proportional response.

I guess linked to that is the question of when an incident starts. And, I don't think it starts when punches start to get thrown, usually it's much sooner than that - and, it's disproportionate responses (by people on all sides) to relatively minor offences that usually contributes to the point where someone gets seriously hurt or killed.

The thing about the Zimmerman thing is that, yes, he was pinned on the ground and his head had hit the concrete. At that point he had no way out, and drawing his gun was possibly his only defence against further injury. But, by the time the incident reached that point the course of events had passed several points where things had escalated, points at which Zimmerman (and probably Martin) could have made different choices that would have resulted in a different outcome. There would have been some point in that confrontation where Zimmerman could have backed down, but he chose not to, a choice that resulted in an escalation. We have no witnesses to that part of the events, we don't know if Zimmerman caught up with Martin and demanded to know what he was doing in the neighbourhood, we don't know if Martin turned on Zimmerman to demand to know why he was following him. The odds on there having been words exchanged are quite high, I'd have thought, probably angry words - that's human nature. Neither Martin or Zimmerman backed down, evidently since the next thing we know is that they're on the ground fighting and Zimmerman has had his head hit the concrete.

Zimmerman (and possibly Martin, but we know a lot less about his actions) had several occasions where a proportionate response to the situation would have been to back away, but he insisted on chasing Martin down. Why does the question of self-defence end up with the very last few actions in a long sequence of events that escalate a situation?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It didn't apply to Zimmerman who had no option to retreat as he was flat on his back with Martin on top of him.
Or so he says.
With no other evidence that contradicts him. Nothing in the angle of the gunshot, nothing.

Every time someone makes out that self-defence relies on nothing but a person's word, I'm going to keep calling that notion out. I don't know what universe you're all in where judges and juries are dumb enough to simply take someone's word for everything, but here in the real world there's a real world, not just words.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It didn't apply to Zimmerman who had no option to retreat as he was flat on his back with Martin on top of him.
Or so he says.
It's three o'clock in the morning and insomniac Mousethief is on the computer in the den. Josephine and the kids are visiting her relatives. He hears something in the back yard and goes out to see, taking the baseball bat by the door. There's a man facing the back of the house. Mousethief says "What are you doing out here?" The man attacks him. Mousethief outweighs the other man, but he is young and fit and hopped up on meth so Mousethief is losing the fight and his fragile noggin is being slammed against the sidewalk. Mousethief takes his bat and brings it down on the man's head. The man is now dead. Turns out he is only 16, he is black and comes from a broken home.

Now Mousethief is on trial and all anyone can say is that a young man is dead and can't tell his side of it and Mousethief calls it self-defense but, well, "So he says."

Shouldn't the prosecution have to prove Mousethief is lying?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
But, that still isn't just what Mousethief says. There would still be the physical evidence - the signs of struggle, the location of the injury which would indicate the strength and angle of impact (going to be different for someone on the floor and struggling compared to other scenarios), the blood tests showing the kid was high on meth ... and finally the character of Mousethief and whether he would lie about such things. And, although we don't like introducing the character of the deceased, if the dead kid had a record of attacking people then it's more likely that that was what he'd done this time.

It's called a body of evidence. The prosecution has to show beyond reasonable doubt that something else happened and the events were not self-defence. The defence only has to show that there are reasonable doubts in the story the prosecution presents.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you can't keep up with the subtlety of the interaction of my views about carriage of guns (not in favour, but the legislators in Florida don't answer to me), proportionality of force to threat (in favour), duty to retreat/avoid (not in favour)
I think where I'm struggling is the last two of those. Because, proportionality of force must also include withdrawing from the situation (if possible) so that no force needs to be used. So, if actions are to be proportional that may need to include a duty to withdraw or avoid if that is the proportional response.

I guess linked to that is the question of when an incident starts. And, I don't think it starts when punches start to get thrown, usually it's much sooner than that - and, it's disproportionate responses (by people on all sides) to relatively minor offences that usually contributes to the point where someone gets seriously hurt or killed.

The thing about the Zimmerman thing is that, yes, he was pinned on the ground and his head had hit the concrete. At that point he had no way out, and drawing his gun was possibly his only defence against further injury. But, by the time the incident reached that point the course of events had passed several points where things had escalated, points at which Zimmerman (and probably Martin) could have made different choices that would have resulted in a different outcome. There would have been some point in that confrontation where Zimmerman could have backed down, but he chose not to, a choice that resulted in an escalation. We have no witnesses to that part of the events, we don't know if Zimmerman caught up with Martin and demanded to know what he was doing in the neighbourhood, we don't know if Martin turned on Zimmerman to demand to know why he was following him. The odds on there having been words exchanged are quite high, I'd have thought, probably angry words - that's human nature. Neither Martin or Zimmerman backed down, evidently since the next thing we know is that they're on the ground fighting and Zimmerman has had his head hit the concrete.

Zimmerman (and possibly Martin, but we know a lot less about his actions) had several occasions where a proportionate response to the situation would have been to back away, but he insisted on chasing Martin down. Why does the question of self-defence end up with the very last few actions in a long sequence of events that escalate a situation?
I do think you've hit on a real issue here. It's true that any incident/event could be defined in a heck of a lot of different ways, and the way you divide it up could very well affect the analysis of what was proportionate or possible.

I also think that it affects questions about withdrawal because, as I said in an expanded reply to CK, to me there's a difference between "could you have withdrawn in response to the threat" versus "could you have withdrawn in a way that stopped the threat ever being present". Because one is about the present moment, and one is about anticipating the future. So what counts as part of the threat will matter.

I do think the particular laws - allowing the carrying of a gun and so forth - probably play a role in defining where the event/incident starts. In Florida, carrying a gun isn't something noteworthy or unlawful or a sign of trouble. In the UK, you might very well end up with a different view being taken, that checking up on people while carrying a gun is itself part of the incident and an opening act of aggression.

The other thing I'll say is that in this particular case, one of the problems with arguing about what Zimmerman could have foreseen is that (as far as I understand it) this wasn't particularly unusual behaviour for him. Or at least some if it wasn't. Nor was it necessarily seen as unusual behaviour in general (which is kind of what I've already said above, about the laws of Florida).

And if he'd done this kind of thing before without ending up in a physical scuffle, should he anticipate a physical scuffle? This why I get worried about the hindsight element, of other people coming along and saying "he should have known it would escalate to that point". Maybe. Maybe not. I'm undecided.

Any test about what it was reasonable to do in the situation is going to be shaped by the expectations of the society in which it happened. What is considered reasonable in Florida probably differs from what you and I would consider reasonable.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What is considered reasonable in Florida probably differs from what you and I would consider reasonable.
That is almost certainly true, especially in some parts of the population of Florida. I come from a country which has had the very reasonable requirement to give a valid reason for owning a gun for almost a century, and where self-defence has never been accepted as a valid reason to own a gun since then. I get the distinct impression that the government issuing licenses to permit someone to own a gun, let alone a license for each gun which specifies why the gun is needed, would be considered unreasonable by many in Florida. As would any claim that a gun may not be owned for the purpose of defence of one's property or life, or the lives of family.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Another thing worth mentioning: earlier tonight when looking up some things about this issue (possibly in a Wikipedia entry?), there was mention of an English case that held that being the initial aggressor doesn't mean you can't claim self-defence. You can, so long as at a later point in the chain of events you were instead on the defensive.

So that would be another reason for not bundling everything together into a single incident. Again, the law will probably be different in different places, but that's apparently the position in England.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Florida's "Stand your ground," law was not used by Zimmerman's lawyer. It didn't enter into it at all and the defense strategy would have been just the same in states without stand-your-ground.
The judge did it for him.
In the scenario you give mousethief, the other party is in his home. This is not at all analogous to the Zimmerman case.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You can't claim self defence if the lad you kill is running away.
Depends on where you are.
Self-defence language should be carefully worded to not create situations in which death is more likely to occur. Stand Your Ground laws will, by the nature of their existence, cause more deaths.
This case illustrates a lot of the problems inherent in Florida and similar.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
orfeo: If you feel upset that I'm not happy with reducing the law to stone-age ideas about how someone has to pay when someone else dies, then tough shit.
A straw man and a false dichotomy. A straw man because I never said anything like "someone has to pay when someone else dies". A false dichotomy because there's actually a lot of space between the Floridan system and those 'stone age ideas'.

Really, my argument is very simple. Zimmerman walked free (got cleared, was declared innocent, whatever). My perception is that this is based on legislation around self-defence which I disagree with.

I think it is possible to have better legislation around self-defence. And to show that this isn't just a hazy idea in my mind, I pointed to an example that happens to be from my country. It's not a piece of legislation that I understand 100% either (you'd probably be able to walk juridical circles around me if we'd discuss it in detail), but it makes instinctive sense to me.

And, well, the Dutch legislation seems to work. It's not some kind of weird dictatorship we're talking about here, but a country which I think has a respected juridical tradition.

quote:
orfeo: If you can't keep up with the subtlety of the interaction of my views about carriage of guns (not in favour, but the legislators in Florida don't answer to me), proportionality of force to threat (in favour), duty to retreat/avoid (not in favour) and anything else that might come up, then I'm not going to dumb it down for you just because you keep repeating over and over and over how you're not a lawyer as if that's some kind of excuse.
The thing is, I want to discuss those subtleties. About proportionality and especially about the other one, subsidiarity. When we had discussion a couple of years ago, I tried to read (in my lay-man way) a significant number of Dutch juridical texts on these issues, just to give a bit of body to what I was talking about.

But at the same time, I'm still confused about basic terms between civil and criminal law. I can understand that this will be weird to you: "how can this guy try to discuss these more complex things if he can't even get these basic things right?" Well, this is how it works for me.

My frustration is, I put effort in composing an argument about subsidiarity, but the only answer I get is: "somewhere in your post you used a term from civil law; it's criminal law we're talking about." That's OK, please correct me when I'm wrong but also try to address the argument I'm trying to make (Gee D hasn't done that yet).

I guess the basic question is: can a debate about a lawyer and a layperson about juridical issues be possible? What would be needed for that?

quote:
orfeo: Get over your desire to lump me and Gee D together
It's because you're both tossers.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
In the scenario you give mousethief, the other party is in his home. This is not at all analogous to the Zimmerman case.
No, I had him in the backyard. This would have been on Mousethief's property but not in his own home. I picked that scenario on purpose, because, in his neighborhood watch capacity, Zimmerman was acting as a protector for his housing complex. Not the same as in his house, but in an area he felt responsible for -- further complicating his mindset.

Whatever the judge told Zimmerman's jury about "stand your ground." I don't see why it should have been brought into it when there was no option of retreat.
-----------
Question for LilBuddha and the rest of you: In all these things you're reading about self-defense, what do you think constitutes an "aggressor?" Can you legally be called an aggressor with just words?
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Gee D: If you can't understand the difference, then what's the use?
For the purpose of this discussion, I don't care if the court "cleared" Zimmerman, if they "found him not guilty" or whatever. I don't know what the difference between these terms is, I just choose the term that sounds vaguely right from the moments I stayed awake during law-based television series.

What matters to me is: he's not in jail, and under a morally superior legal system he would be. That's what my discussion is about.
I had not answered you because it's now 5.49 m and surprise, surprise, I've been asleep.

A criminal trial ends up with a person found guilty or not guilty. Guilty means that the jury is satisfied that the prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. Not guilty means that the jury is not satisfied to that degree. The jury's finding is never that a person is cleared. A major difference.

Why is it morally superior to put Zimmerman in gaol? You bluster on about this, but the evidence that we know is not just what Zimmerman says, but what he says together with some corroborative material which cold easily have raised a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. There is the medical and lay evidence which supports what Zimmerman said about his being on his back, lifted and pounded back onto the pavement. There is an eye witness at some distance who says much the same. Now
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Gee D: If you can't understand the difference, then what's the use?
For the purpose of this discussion, I don't care if the court "cleared" Zimmerman, if they "found him not guilty" or whatever. I don't know what the difference between these terms is, I just choose the term that sounds vaguely right from the moments I stayed awake during law-based television series.

What matters to me is: he's not in jail, and under a morally superior legal system he would be. That's what my discussion is about.
I had not answered you because it's now 5.49 m and surprise, surprise, I've been asleep.

A criminal trial ends up with a person found guilty or not guilty. Guilty means that the jury is satisfied that the prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. Not guilty means that the jury is not satisfied to that degree. The jury's finding is never that a person is cleared. A major difference.

Why is it morally superior to put Zimmerman in gaol? You bluster on about this, but the evidence that we know is not just what Zimmerman says, but what he says together with some corroborative material which cold easily have raised a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. There is the medical and lay evidence which supports what Zimmerman said about his being on his back, lifted and pounded back onto the pavement. There is an eye witness at some distance who says much the same. Now that is open to the usual caveats about the reliability of such eye witness under difficulties of distance and dark, but those are factors for the jury.

Zimmerman's vigilante attitude and actions are stupid. We know that, but why does that disentitle him from taking an action reasonable in the circumstances in which he found himself? He lives in a gun-cultured society and reaches for a gun. What if he uses his bare hands to deter his attacker - remember that there is evidence that he was attacked - and in the course of doing so strangles him?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Premature ejaculation a particular problem of yours?

If you want one, the other, or both (please say both) of your posts deleting, then I may consider a request favourably. On the other hand, I may just set the board on fire.

DT
HH
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It's three o'clock in the morning and insomniac Mousethief is on the computer in the den. Josephine and the kids are visiting her relatives. He hears something in the back yard and goes out to see, taking the baseball bat by the door. There's a man facing the back of the house. Mousethief says "What are you doing out here?" The man attacks him. Mousethief outweighs the other man, but he is young and fit and hopped up on meth so Mousethief is losing the fight and his fragile noggin is being slammed against the sidewalk. Mousethief takes his bat and brings it down on the man's head. The man is now dead. Turns out he is only 16, he is black and comes from a broken home.

Now Mousethief is on trial and all anyone can say is that a young man is dead and can't tell his side of it and Mousethief calls it self-defense but, well, "So he says."

Shouldn't the prosecution have to prove Mousethief is lying?
This sort of "just so" story about guns are every bit as useful as the "ticking time bomb story". The scenario sounds plausible, but it isn't.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Gee D: A criminal trial ends up with a person found guilty or not guilty. Guilty means that the jury is satisfied that the prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. Not guilty means that the jury is not satisfied to that degree. The jury's finding is never that a person is cleared. A major difference.
Okay, are we done about the difference between those terms now?

quote:
Gee D: Why is it morally superior to put Zimmerman in gaol?
To me, self-defence is a bit of a unique piece of legislation.

We wouldn't get away with "Yes your honour, I broke into his house, but he tried to break into my house first" or with "Yes your honour, I raped this person, but she tried to rape me first."

There are good reasons why we should be able to get away with "Yes your honour, I killed this person but he tried to kill me first". But it does make it rather unique in my eyes.

But there needs to be some kind of check on this. To me, being attacked by someone and fearing for your life isn't enough, even if there is physical proof of this attack. Alan has already explained here what kind of problems a society can run into if this is accepted as sufficient to claim self-defence.

There needs to be something more. The Dutch system calls this subsidiariteit; I've gone out on a limb and translated this as subsidiarity. I don't think it's the same thing as 'duty to retreat'.

When I researched this on the earlier thread a couple of years ago, I came across an example that I found enlightening. I'm not sure if I can find the link again.

I'm at home and I'm annoyed because I find that my neighbour is playing music too loud. I'm a hot-headed type and I decide to go over to his house and confront him. Because I know that these things sometimes get out of hand, I take a sharp kitchen knife with me.

I ring his bell, and start arguing rather harshly with him in his doorway right away. He responds in the same way. After a while, we're pushing each other. It becomes a struggle, and he manages to land a hard blow that really messes up my face. I take out my knife and kill him.

Under Dutch law, I wouldn't be able to claim self-defence.

Firstly, the judge wouldn't only consider the moment in which my neighbour attacked me. She would consider the whole process / encounter / engagement (I'm sure they have a word for it), which started when I rung the bell.

Secondly, the judge would consider that I considered the situation dangerous (as evidenced by my precaution to bring a knife) but didn't take any steps to avoid the danger. I could have decided not to go to my neighbour, but call the police instead. I could have backed out when we were still at the pushing stage.

The reason why I find this system morally superior is because it gives me co-responsibility for the aggressive situation. I can't claim: "my neighbour got aggressive, so the only thing I could do was to kill him". The fact that things got aggressive was at least as much my responsibility as it was his.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

There are good reasons why we should be able to get away with "Yes your honour, I killed this person but he tried to kill me first". But it does make it rather unique in my eyes.
But that's not it at all - that's not self-defence, that's revenge, and is murder.

Self-defence is "I killed this person to prevent him from killing / injuring me." Depending on your jurisdiction, there may be a shorter or longer list of "reasonable" actions that you have to take if you can in preference to killing him.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, you would consider that no crime has been committed? That there's a man lying dead in the road but legally no one is responsible for killing him?
In any genuine case of self-defence, the person lying dead on the floor is responsible for his own death. This is the logic of self-defence: the defender was presented with no reasonable alternative (what is "reasonable" depends on your jurisdiction) and so was forced to kill the assailant.

Mousethief thought upthread that I was confusing blame and agency, and perhaps I wasn't terribly clear, so I'll try again here.

The defender clearly has agency - it is possible for him to choose to lie down on the floor and die, for example. And whilst that might indeed be what a martyr does, it isn't reasonable for the law to require it.

If the defender is attacked, and he has no reasonable alternative other than using lethal force against his attacker, and his attacker dies of that force, then the defender carries no blame. The blame for the attacker's death rests solely with the attacker himself.

Now change the scenario, and assume that the defender has the option to retreat, and assume that he's in a jurisdiction where he must retreat if it is possible to do so (ie. he's outside his home, there's no "stand your ground" law, and he's not defending some third party who is unable to retreat). If in this case he chooses to shoot the attacker, he can't claim "self-defence" and shares the blame for the attacker's death with the attacker. He's probably guilty of manslaughter, and may or may not be guilty of murder.


I think my language here is actually rather stronger than the law. The law requires self-defence to be "reasonable". My language here is requiring self-defence to be the only reasonable action - that all other actions are unreasonable. That is a stronger statement (although in practice there might nor be so much distance between the two.)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

There are good reasons why we should be able to get away with "Yes your honour, I killed this person but he tried to kill me first". But it does make it rather unique in my eyes.
But that's not it at all - that's not self-defence, that's revenge, and is murder.

Self-defence is "I killed this person to prevent him from killing / injuring me." Depending on your jurisdiction, there may be a shorter or longer list of "reasonable" actions that you have to take if you can in preference to killing him.
I think LeRoc is onto something about self-defence being a unique scenario, even though his counter-examples were more related to revenge than protection. Self-defence allows one to commit what would otherwise be a crime (assault, murder, etc) inorder to prevent a greater crime against yourself or someone else. Most crime prevention is not in itself a crime - there's nothing illegal about fitting stronger locks on your home, or securing valuables in a safe, or even backing out of a bar before a fight breaks out.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

Question for LilBuddha and the rest of you: In all these things you're reading about self-defense, what do you think constitutes an "aggressor?" Can you legally be called an aggressor with just words?
Of course you can. If one person tells another "I'm going to kill you" they are an aggressor.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It's three o'clock in the morning and insomniac Mousethief is on the computer in the den. Josephine and the kids are visiting her relatives. He hears something in the back yard and goes out to see, taking the baseball bat by the door. There's a man facing the back of the house. Mousethief says "What are you doing out here?" The man attacks him. Mousethief outweighs the other man, but he is young and fit and hopped up on meth so Mousethief is losing the fight and his fragile noggin is being slammed against the sidewalk. Mousethief takes his bat and brings it down on the man's head. The man is now dead. Turns out he is only 16, he is black and comes from a broken home.

Now Mousethief is on trial and all anyone can say is that a young man is dead and can't tell his side of it and Mousethief calls it self-defense but, well, "So he says."

Shouldn't the prosecution have to prove Mousethief is lying?
This sort of "just so" story about guns are every bit as useful as the "ticking time bomb story". The scenario sounds plausible, but it isn't.
The story has nothing to do with guns. It's meant to point out that self-defense situations are sometimes without witnesses so Mousethief's "So he says," regarding Zimmerman could apply to anyone, even him.

I disagree that finding a prowler in your yard and getting into a fight with him is as unlikely as a ticking time bomb and a man in custody who knows where it is if the answer can only be tortured out of him.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Of course you can. If one person tells another "I'm going to kill you" they are an aggressor.
But it doesn't follow that it's reasonable to kill someone who says "I'm going to kill you" - you have to reasonably believe that he is in fact going to attempt to do that (if he says "I'm going to kill you" whilst walking towards you with a weapon, you can defend yourself - you're not obliged to let him land the first blow.)

I don't think "fighting words" is a defense to an assault charge anywhere, is it?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Any mention that there simply wasn't enough proof that Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense and that he was not obligated to find witnesses for his side of things, always ends up with a list of Zimmerman's faults:

He was carrying a gun when he didn't have to. He didn't immediately jump back in his car when the police asked him to. He followed Trayvon. He asked Trayvon what he was doing. He's a racist, he's a sexist, he's insensitive, he's stupid, he's fat, he's white. None of which is against the law.
Here you mix up two completely unrelated things and I'm not sure why. In terms of the legal question, there wasn't enough evidence to prove Zimmerman guilty of murder, or even homicide, since self-defense rules out a conviction for homicide. The only side of the story we have is Zimmerman's, and even though I think to the soles of my feet he was lying and set out to murder Trayvon and got what he wanted (and more than he bargained for), there's not enough evidence to convict. Fortunately we're still innocent until proven guilty in this country, and the prosecution couldn't prove him guilty, for lack of evidence. His actions were suspicious, but not enough to prove to the level required by law that he committed murder and did not kill in self-defense.

And guess what? I'm glad about that. I'm glad that the prosecution has to have good evidence to get a jury to convict for murder (well, if the perp is white; let's not even go into how easy it is to send black guys to the big house on trumped-up charges shall we?).

Your list of his bad traits is pointless, because nobody is saying those things are against the law. What they are is presumptive evidence that he intentionally set out to kill the black intruder in his precious low-black neighborhood. Which should be obvious to anybody with a third of a brain and any knowledge at all about race relations in the United States. But they're not conclusive so he walked. Which is good. I don't want people sent up on inconclusive circumstantial evidence.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It didn't apply to Zimmerman who had no option to retreat as he was flat on his back with Martin on top of him.
Or so he says.
With no other evidence that contradicts him. Nothing in the angle of the gunshot, nothing.
No fucking shit, Sherlock.

quote:
Every time someone makes out that self-defence relies on nothing but a person's word, I'm going to keep calling that notion out. I don't know what universe you're all in where judges and juries are dumb enough to simply take someone's word for everything, but here in the real world there's a real world, not just words.
It's funny you want to take away not just blame but agency from people who kill in self-defense, but not from people who provoke a situation in which they get into a corner requiring them to kill. Zimmerman could have kept his own head from hitting the pavement by staying in his fucking car. As he was ordered to do.

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Now Mousethief is on trial and all anyone can say is that a young man is dead and can't tell his side of it and Mousethief calls it self-defense but, well, "So he says."

Shouldn't the prosecution have to prove Mousethief is lying?
Yes. And I never said otherwise.

[ 18. May 2016, 00:38: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Zimmerman could have kept his own head from hitting the pavement by staying in his fucking car. As he was ordered to do.
I don't believe that 911 operators actually have the capacity to issue such an order, do they?

(Doesn't alter the fact that he could have avoided the whole confrontation by not following Martin when he ran off. I just don't think the word "order" is appropriate.)

(I think both Martin and Zimmerman are entitled to walk around on a public right of way, aren't they?)

[ 18. May 2016, 00:52: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The word I used earlier was "advised". But, even then "advise" is only one possible way of reading the transcript. Depending on the tone of voice of the operator the "you don't need to do that" (or, words to that effect as I'm not going back to find the link to the transcript) could be anywhere from a "I don't care what you do, but that's not necessary" to "I strongly advise you to stay in your car, go home and let the police handle this".
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Depending on the tone of voice of the operator the "you don't need to do that" (or, words to that effect as I'm not going back to find the link to the transcript) could be anywhere from a "I don't care what you do, but that's not necessary" to "I strongly advise you to stay in your car, go home and let the police handle this".
"Advise" is another good word. It can cover "we suggest you don't do that because it's unsafe for you" and also "we suggest you don't do that because we'll arrest you".
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:



What they are is presumptive evidence that he intentionally set out to kill the black intruder in his precious low-black neighborhood. Which should be obvious to anybody with a third of a brain and any knowledge at all about race relations in the United States.


Why do you think that? I don't think it's obvious at all. He had volunteered to go on the neighborhood watch because his area had been experiencing burglaries. It makes more sense to me that he was out there hoping to catch the burglar. The idea that he went out with his gun intending to kill any black person he happened to see, seems very far fetched to me.

I think your ideas about race relations in America are over the top. I'm not saying there aren't problems, but there's no race war going on where average citizens go out looking for people of the opposite race to kill them. For the most part, people are still killing people they know over domestic problems, drugs, money, -- the usual.


FBI stats on murders in 2014: Blacks killed by whites 8%, by other blacks 90%. Whites killed by blacks 15%, by other whites 81%.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Every time someone makes out that self-defence relies on nothing but a person's word, I'm going to keep calling that notion out. I don't know what universe you're all in where judges and juries are dumb enough to simply take someone's word for everything, but here in the real world there's a real world, not just words.
It's funny you want to take away not just blame but agency from people who kill in self-defense, but not from people who provoke a situation in which they get into a corner requiring them to kill. Zimmerman could have kept his own head from hitting the pavement by staying in his fucking car. As he was ordered to do.
Other have already pointed out the flaws in your notion of what Zimmerman was ordered to do. I'm just here to point out two other things.

First, what you said doesn't seem to have much to do with what I said.

Second, it is rather odd to accuse me of robbing people of agency, and in the same post suggest that Zimmerman should have obeyed orders. [Paranoid]

[ 18. May 2016, 03:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Zimmerman could have kept his own head from hitting the pavement by staying in his fucking car. As he was ordered to do.
I don't believe that 911 operators actually have the capacity to issue such an order, do they?
Fine. Fix the verb to whatever you want. The exact verb is not the point, is it?

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Second, it is rather odd to accuse me of robbing people of agency, and in the same post suggest that Zimmerman should have obeyed orders. [Paranoid]
Again you show you don't know what that means. Hardly surprising, though.

[ 18. May 2016, 03:58: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Leorning Cniht:
ut that's not it at all - that's not self-defence, that's revenge, and is murder.

Self-defence is "I killed this person to prevent him from killing / injuring me."
Fuck I hate it when I make the effort to compose a long argument, and all people do is point out the one instance where I formulated something wrong, and ignore the rest that I said.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Leorning Cniht:
ut that's not it at all - that's not self-defence, that's revenge, and is murder.

Self-defence is "I killed this person to prevent him from killing / injuring me."
Fuck I hate it when I make the effort to compose a long argument, and all people do is point out the one instance where I formulated something wrong, and ignore the rest that I said.
Welcome to the Ship of Fools.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

FBI stats on murders in 2014: Blacks killed by whites 8%, by other blacks 90%. Whites killed by blacks 15%, by other whites 81%.
Statistics without context are meaningless. Crime follows poverty and black people in America have a higher rate of poverty. White people who are poor are more likely to live in proximity to poor black people.
The average person in America does not go looking for any trouble. This is not the problem. The problem is the average person in America actively or passively supports those who perpetuate inequity.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
mousethief:Welcome to the Ship of Fools.
Yeah I know (I saw it just happened with you too).
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Le Roc, in your post timed at 9.24, you give a hypothetical example - but your action in using a knife in answer to a punch on the face, both of you standing at a door, is at best use of excessive force in self-defence. More likely, your counsel would not run self-defence in answer to the charge - it would take away from arguing remorse when all but inevitably you are convicted of murder. If you go back to the definition I gave, you will see the word "necessary". Not much necessity in your example.

[ 18. May 2016, 07:39: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Seriously, how long can people keep it up, not reacting to my argument?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Le Roc, in your post timed at 9.24, you give a hypothetical example - but your action in using a knife in answer to a punch on the face, both of you standing at a door, is at best use of excessive force in self-defence. More likely, your counsel would not run self-defence in answer to the charge - it would take away from arguing remorse when all but inevitably you are convicted of murder. If you go back to the definition I gave, you will see the word "necessary". Not much necessity in your example.
I think I'm not reading the same post. Because the example LeRoc gave was of a hypothetical case where (under Dutch law) self-defence would not be applicable. Although, if I understood the scenario correctly, that would also be the case if instead of a punch in the face the other guy produces a weapon - because although there is then a real and credible threat to life, the fact that he had taken the knife expecting the possibility of a serious confrontation means he deliberately entered into the situation where the need to defend himself was likely.

I've no idea what the UK law would be in the same situation, except there would certainly be a charge for carrying a weapon regardless of whether it was used. And, I've no idea about other jurisdictions either.

Necessity is an interesting concept. I think it might link with proportional. If threatened by fists, you say that it isn't necessary to respond with a knife, nor is it proportional - although there would be situational differences, it may be considered necessary and proportional to use a weapon against fists if you're a wimp and the other guy is muscular.

Also, it might be necessary and proportional to kill or injure to protect life. It can never be necessary and proportional to kill or injure to protect property. Yet, it appears from what I've read, that in the US self-defence is used to justify injury and even death to protect property.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
mousethief:Welcome to the Ship of Fools.
Yeah I know (I saw it just happened with you too).
It really didn't. Why don't you two precious flowers go and have a good cry together.

You seriously think that the difference between self-defence and revenging murder is a minor detail in this discussion? It's bloody fundamental to the whole issue.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Still not responding to my argument.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Also, it might be necessary and proportional to kill or injure to protect life. It can never be necessary and proportional to kill or injure to protect property. Yet, it appears from what I've read, that in the US self-defence is used to justify injury and even death to protect property.
I think you'll find that it's not entirely exclusive to the US. However much I like a dollop of criticism for when US laws on things like "stand your ground" seem excessive, it's unfair to suggest that they are alone on the protection of property.

Australia allows some self-defence for property, and while it doesn't allow you go for death or grievous bodily harm, it doesn't say that you mustn't injure someone. From what I understand this is close to the common law position, i.e. it's probably close to the law in England unless it's been heavily modified.

I'm not sure that a hard and fast rule against all injury would be viable, because it might hamper people too much. For example, it would seem reasonable to me to be allowed to whack a person's hand if they're in the middle of picking up an object of yours, or to tackle them as you get the property off them.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Still not responding to my argument.
Your argument is built on a straw man idea that in other countries are free to keep escalating the situation. They're not. People aren't allowed to consciously keep being the aggressor.

Gee D has already pointed out that you've also not taken into account the requirement for proportionality. You dismissed this as not addressing your argument. It bloody well is, just apparently not to your liking.

And I've already responded to the heart of your argument in great detail, in a post that was nominally replying to CK explaining why the law of England and Wales is not the same as what you propose and why I have problems with your proposal. Did you bother reading that?

And if you want to discuss Dutch law, I'll happily pull back up all the things I googled last night about the debates going on in the Netherlands and the dissatisfaction of many people, including politicians, with the strictures of Dutch law and how they don't work. I didn't think it was worth bothering with but, hey... no, I still don't really think it's worth bothering with.

"Addressing your argument" doesn't consist of acknowledging what wonderful points you've made.

[ 18. May 2016, 08:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Oh fuck it Le Roc, here's the link in case you can't manage to scroll back an entire page.

http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005506;p=29#001443

As far as I can see you just completely ignored this post. It was the heart of my thoughts. Just because it didn't have your name on it in nice shiny letters doesn't mean it was irrelevant.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Sorry, no intention to suggest the US is unique in relation to what extent it's posisble to use lethal force to protect property. It's just that this thread is about the US.

In the UK it's also legal to detain someone, and some harm may come from binding someone to a chair or similar. So, yes there is a bit of stretch to what's proportionate and necessary. I guess there might be some thought of intention and whether the harm caused is the intent or an unintended consequence. The intent in tying someone up is to detain them until the police arrive, rope burns as the suspected thief tries to move are unintentional consequences. The intent of grabbing a cricket bat to give a burglar a fright may result in injury if instead he decides to rush you.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Ultimately, what is necessary in any particular case would come down to the jury's opinion of what was necessary on all the evidence before it. The obligation on a judge is to summarise the law and give directions as to that; then to summarise the evidence before the jury and the submissions of counsel on each side. In summarising the evidence the judge must stress to the jury that it is for jurors to decide what the facts are, based on all the evidence. Given that the jurors in a criminal case normally only announce if they find that the accused is guilty or not guilty* one can only try to deduce what they decided about a particular point.

* If the case for the accused is not guilty on the ground of insanity, then the jury is directed that that is an available verdict. In other cases, a jury may be deciding if an accused is fit to be tried. There are a few other exceptions.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

FBI stats on murders in 2014: Blacks killed by whites 8%, by other blacks 90%. Whites killed by blacks 15%, by other whites 81%.
Statistics without context are meaningless. Crime follows poverty and black people in America have a higher rate of poverty. White people who are poor are more likely to live in proximity to poor black people.
The average person in America does not go looking for any trouble. This is not the problem. The problem is the average person in America actively or passively supports those who perpetuate inequity.
That's why I didn't invent any "context." Of course poverty increases crime we all know that.

If you had read my entire post (something you keep forgetting to do before taking me to task) you would see that I was showing Mousethief that he was wrong to imply a great race war going on in America where it's routine for people to go out looking for people of the opposite race to murder. The stats, in any context, demonstrate that, that couldn't possibly be going on because there are relatively few opposite race murders in either direction.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Seriously, how long can people keep it up, not reacting to my argument?
At least they're not reacting to arguments you didn't make.

No Prophet reacted strongly to my "story about guns," that didn't have a single gun in it, LilBuddha thinks we're on opposite sides when we aren't, Gee D's checking our spelling. This is what happens when we're almost all on the same side in the "Fucking guns," thread. Nit picking takes over.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In the UK it's also legal to detain someone, and some harm may come from binding someone to a chair or similar. So, yes there is a bit of stretch to what's proportionate and necessary. I guess there might be some thought of intention and whether the harm caused is the intent or an unintended consequence. The intent in tying someone up is to detain them until the police arrive, rope burns as the suspected thief tries to move are unintentional consequences. The intent of grabbing a cricket bat to give a burglar a fright may result in injury if instead he decides to rush you.
OK, it's legal to detain a burglar until the police arrive. So presumably it's also legal to use reasonable force in order to do so.

So if, in the course of using reasonable force to detain a burglar, the burglar fights back (hardly an unexpected turn of events) and your self-defence causes a fatal injury (say you hit him with a paperweight that was on the table and break his skull) is that still reasonable?

Anyone arguing that we should take all possible steps to avoid a potentially fatal confrontation seems to be arguing that someone faced with a burglar in their house should simply go back to bed and let him finish his felonious work in peace. After all, any confrontation whatsoever has the potential to fatally escalate.

Of course, they also seem to be suggesting that anyone faced with any confrontation whatsoever should also run away lest they have to defend themselves with lethal force. Which seems pretty darn unreasonable.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yet, it appears from what I've read, that in the US self-defence is used to justify injury and even death to protect property.
Not in this state (MN), in any case:

quote:
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.
source

Basically, the only justifiable use of deadly force here is to prevent death or great bodily harm to oneself or someone else. The part about "preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode" has been significantly constrained by case law; it only applies to one's dwelling, not one's yard, garage, outbuildings, driveway, etc. Also exactly what constitutes "preventing the commission of a felony" has been narrowly defined by the courts.

It does, however, remove in one's home the general duty to retreat if reasonable that would apply in a public place in MN.

Also, as my friend (and local firearms instructor) Joel Rosenberg used to put it, "Shooting someone in self-defense is the second-worst thing that could have happened that day". Meaning (and I don't think that anyone here has addressed this) that even if one is completely justified in shooting and killing an assailant, one isn't off scot-free - there will be lawyers to pay, both in criminal court and in the inevitable civil suit that follows. (MN law prohibits a criminal or his heirs from suing for injuries sustained in the course of criminal activity, but one still ends up in court making that argument.)
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Anyone arguing that we should take all possible steps to avoid a potentially fatal confrontation
That's the flaw in your argument. No-one's arguing for all possible steps, rather for all reasonable steps.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Also, as my friend (and local firearms instructor) Joel Rosenberg used to put it, "Shooting someone in self-defense is the second-worst thing that could have happened that day". Meaning (and I don't think that anyone here has addressed this) that even if one is completely justified in shooting and killing an assailant, one isn't off scot-free - there will be lawyers to pay, both in criminal court and in the inevitable civil suit that follows.
Most police and military who have had to kill someone in the line of duty, say that it disturbs them for years afterward, if not forever. I think it would be a horrible thing to live with.

Added to all that, they may well be pilloried on the internet. In Zimmerman's case, although we can't really know what's in his heart, I think the whole thing changed him dramatically for the worse. It's my belief (obviously guessing) that before Trayvon he was a fairly ordinary, if wrong headed guy, who had a gun and dreamed of being a hero to his neighbors. There were character witnesses at the time saying he seemed like a good guy and was not at all racist. After Trayvon, he received so much negative attention and hatred, that he became angry and defensive and is not a complete and total jerk, violent with his wife and probably now a racist.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Anyone arguing that we should take all possible steps to avoid a potentially fatal confrontation
That's the flaw in your argument. No-one's arguing for all possible steps, rather for all reasonable steps.
And I think "all" is a flaw no matter what else you put with it.

Because that's part of the invitation for hindsight. That's the invitation for people to sit around after the event, without the pressure of the actual situation, and think up things you could have done, and then tell you that you really should have thought of that at the time, in the pressure of the situation.

My fundamental objection to this boils down to this distinction: the law as it stands in places like the UK and Australia and the US looks at what you actually did and asks whether it was reasonable. All these other proposals instead look at what you could have done and ask whether those options were reasonable.

Any legal test that pushes in that direction creates serious risks of people who weren't actually there telling you what you should have thought of and punishing you for not having thought of every option, when there is unlikely to have been time to think through the possibilities. The critical time period in most of these events is far shorter than the time it has taken me to write that post, never mind the amount of time that has been spent raking over the facts of any case that gets a media profile.

There's a deep air of unreality in going down the path of asking a defendant "why didn't you do X", when the truth might simply be that the defendant didn't think of X at the time. Is that what we're looking to punish people for?

I much prefer a system that holds you account for the actions you actually took, not for other actions you failed to take.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
No. Twilight. I reacted to the using of a contrived example.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Yes "All" is also a flaw. I think it is the package as a whole that should be view as reasonable. And the added complication of at what point does this become a confrontation in which the reasonable test is applied.

I've done ten unreasonable things this morning but I don't expect them to be held against me if I end up in a self-defence situation later in the afternoon.

However to nail my colours to the mast In terms of nailing a traffic offence if you had breakfast at 9am in Miami and wound up in Orlando at 11am you should be given a speeding ticket. The fact that you don't have a witness observing a speeding car on the highway doesn't get you off.

Likewise if you start following someone who was minding their own business in a public place and wind up with an angry provocation where you shoot them then the chances that you were unreasonable at some point inbetween must be quite high.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Likewise if you start following someone who was minding their own business in a public place and wind up with an angry provocation where you shoot them then the chances that you were unreasonable at some point inbetween must be quite high.
If this is supposed to be a summary of Martin/Zimmerman, I would query it. "Angry provocation"? Do you think that following someone is sufficient to be an "angry provocation"?

I ask partly because people do seem to say pretty often some version of "Zimmerman shouldn't have followed Martin". As if following someone could be foreseen to be sufficient in and of itself to trigger physical confrontation. All I can say to that is I've walked behind any number of people, without intentionally following them, and I'm awfully glad none of them has ever got the wrong interpretation of my path into their head.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Well since heads were banged against concrete and shots were fired there was clearly anger at some point. And I think Zimmerman's own testimony is that he initiated the contact between them - not that Martin flew at him to start with. But I accept Martin could have made the initial encounter more angry than it needed to be.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Gee D has already pointed out that you've also not taken into account the requirement for proportionality. You dismissed this as not addressing your argument. It bloody well is, just apparently not to your liking.
Stand your ground laws remove proportionality. This case from Texas illustrates this clearly.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

If you had read my entire post (something you keep forgetting to do before taking me to task) you would see that I was showing Mousethief that he was wrong to imply a great race war going on in America where it's routine for people to go out looking for people of the opposite race to murder. The stats, in any context, demonstrate that, that couldn't possibly be going on because there are relatively few opposite race murders in either direction.
There is not a "race war" in America, not in the typical use of the word. What does exist is systemic oppression of minorities, especially black people. That is what your statistics ultimately represent.
Please, and I mean this sincerely, let me know when it appears I am misreading you, because I am attempting not to.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
At least they're not reacting to arguments you didn't make.

No Prophet reacted strongly to my "story about guns," that didn't have a single gun in it, LilBuddha thinks we're on opposite sides when we aren't, Gee D's checking our spelling. This is what happens when we're almost all on the same side in the "Fucking guns," thread. Nit picking takes over.
Thinking of this in terms of sides is problematic as there are multiple issues here. I do not think we are on opposite sides, but do think we see things from a slightly different perspective. Whether or not Zimmerman had in his mind to kill a black person, race is an issue in this case. It cannot help but be an issue. Race pervades American thinking. Not necessarily hate, but the history of America doesn't really allow for equal regard. Not yet.
Somewhere between Zimmerman spotting Martin walking and the conclusion of the trial, race played a part.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Gee D has already pointed out that you've also not taken into account the requirement for proportionality. You dismissed this as not addressing your argument. It bloody well is, just apparently not to your liking.
Stand your ground laws remove proportionality. This case from Texas illustrates this clearly.
I think I've made it clear I don't support stand your ground laws. LeRoc's list of insufficiently "moral" laws includes places such as England and Australia that don't have stand your ground laws.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Whether or not Zimmerman had in his mind to kill a black person, race is an issue in this case. It cannot help but be an issue. Race pervades American thinking. Not necessarily hate, but the history of America doesn't really allow for equal regard. Not yet.
Somewhere between Zimmerman spotting Martin walking and the conclusion of the trial, race played a part.
Maybe it's time to not just talk about what happens to you when walking while black, and to start talking about what happens nowadays if you carry a gun while white.

It is exactly this descent into memes that I rail against in these sorts of cases. The horrible fallacious reasoning that says that because of the history of black people being wrongly shot, this case must be another case of a black person being wrongly shot is exactly what makes the wrong cases into highest-profile causes.

The outrage of another example of "a white guy getting away with shooting a black guy" is fanned brightest in the cases where the police and prosecutors do nothing visible - when they lay no charges - precisely because they look at the facts of the individual case and determine that THIS white guy SHOULD get away with it, because it is genuinely lawful.

And that is the whole problem with what has happened with race in these cases. The anger about white guys getting away with shooting a black guy has morphed into a determination that NO white guy should get away with shooting a black guy, no matter what the circumstances of the case.

And according to the principles of our legal system, that's actually worse. We've gone from guilty people going free to a desire to see innocent people be jailed. Yes, innocent.

Don't get me wrong, there are cases that have been in the news where I've looked and thought holy crap, that's bad. But it's the cases that get the most publicity of all - Zimmerman, or the policeman in Missouri - those are the cases where as the evidence is presented, the grounds for a conviction look shakier and shakier. And what's not shaken is the demand for a conviction. THIS white guy who looks like he won't be punished becomes a stand-in and symbol for all the other white guys that weren't punished.

Race is an issue in this case. And that's a colossal problem, just as much as systemic racism is a problem.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The outrage of another example of "a white guy getting away with shooting a black guy" is fanned brightest in the cases where the police and prosecutors do nothing visible - when they lay no charges - precisely because they look at the facts of the individual case and determine that THIS white guy SHOULD get away with it, because it is genuinely lawful.
The problem is when there clearly is a systematic problem then the systematic problem also includes the police and prosecutors that we would need to trust have done their job in this individual case. So of course the flames are fanned.

One of the most insidious things about institutional racism is that you never know. One knows statistically speaking that one will be turned down for jobs where race is a factor, and that one will experience unfriendly responses where race is a factor. Being turned down and wondering if race was a factor, or being treated harshly and wondering if it was race, but not knowing either way and therefore not being able to calibrate a response really fucks with your head.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But it's the cases that get the most publicity of all - Zimmerman, or the policeman in Missouri - those are the cases where as the evidence is presented, the grounds for a conviction look shakier and shakier. And what's not shaken is the demand for a conviction.
Yes. Initial reports and speculation were deeply biased* against Zimmerman and this stirred up widespread outrage. As more facts came in, the details of the case shifted dramatically but the emotion didn't budge. Thinking Fast Thinking Slow perhaps sheds some light on this behaviour.

I very much considered myself a progressive at the time but was badly shaken by seeing how (a) much-mocked conservative talking points were repeatedly shown to be right, and (b) liberals wouldn't acknowledge their mistakes and just ramped up the scorn and anger. Orfeo was one of the few people on the Ship who said "hang on guys" and I respect him a great deal for it.

(* For instance NBC doctoring audio tapes to make Zimmerman sound racist. This was shamefully dishonest, and if Fox had done similar we'd have all been furious. Barely a word of protest from the liberals I know online.)
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Anyone arguing that we should take all possible steps to avoid a potentially fatal confrontation seems to be arguing that someone faced with a burglar in their house should simply go back to bed and let him finish his felonious work in peace. After all, any confrontation whatsoever has the potential to fatally escalate.
I don't think anyone has argued that we should take all possible steps. The strongest argument has been "all reasonable steps", which isn't the same. And I'd call being required not to confront a burglar in your home unreasonable.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Maybe it's time to not just talk about what happens to you when walking while black, and to start talking about what happens nowadays if you carry a gun while white.

It is exactly this descent into memes that I rail against in these sorts of cases. The horrible fallacious reasoning that says that because of the history of black people being wrongly shot, this case must be another case of a black person being wrongly shot is exactly what makes the wrong cases into highest-profile causes.
You have mentioned this several times. I'm not doing this, and I don't think most people here are. Are there people doing this? Absolutely. are they the majority, I don't think so. This case has made the news, in part, because it is not as cut and dry as you seem to be presenting.
quote:

The outrage of another example of "a white guy getting away with shooting a black guy" is fanned brightest in the cases where the police and prosecutors do nothing visible - when they lay no charges - precisely because they look at the facts of the individual case and determine that THIS white guy SHOULD get away with it, because it is genuinely lawful.

And that is the whole problem with what has happened with race in these cases. The anger about white guys getting away with shooting a black guy has morphed into a determination that NO white guy should get away with shooting a black guy, no matter what the circumstances of the case.
Again, not what I am saying. My point to Twilight about racism is that it is much more pervasive than some think. And can be subtle. It affects the way the people determine threat, the way the police investigate, the way judges and juries evaluate the evidence and the witnesses.
Few trials areas simple as collect and weigh the evidence, this is simply not how humans work.
The judgement of guilty or not guilty is often subjective. From the initiating act itself, to who do the jury believe can affect the final outcome.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think I've made it clear I don't support stand your ground laws. LeRoc's list of insufficiently "moral" laws includes places such as England and Australia that don't have stand your ground laws.
I know this. Since the Zimmerman case is what sparked this particular tangent, it is a relevant comment. IMO.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re Zimmerman's post-trial mindset:

"George Zimmerman Taunts Trayvon Martin’s Parents: ‘They Didn’t Raise Their Son Right’" (The Daily Beast).

NOTE: This is not an objectively-written article. More of a combination of feature and editorial. But it does reference things Zimmerman has actually said and done. Oh, and the link in the 2nd paragraph goes to the wrong place.

I think, FWIW, that whether he really believes he was *the* victim, or is trying to believe that to quell whatever's going on inside him, he's setting himself up for someone to decide Zimmerman has gone too far, and make him shut up. Not that anyone *should* use violence against him, but someone may feel pushed too far.

I wonder what kind of verdict *that* person would get?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

I wonder what kind of verdict *that* person would get?
If it wasn't a crime to shoot arseholes, there'd be a lot fewer people around.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
whether he really believes he was *the* victim, or is trying to believe that to quell whatever's going on inside him
I've said before that Zimmerman does not appear to be reacting in the way that I would expect the vast majority of people to react to having killed someone. There does not appear to be any regret or remorse, though if that article is correct he went through some rough times emotionally so that may just be an impression gained by his dropping out of the media spotlight only to reappear to sell his gun. I'm willing to accept that he is deliberately creating this "hero" persona as a coping mechanism for emotional distress caused by having shot Martin, and the way he marketed the gun reinforces that "hero" persona. It may work for his emotional stability, but it's not making him any friends outside the gun-nut community.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I've said before that Zimmerman does not appear to be reacting in the way that I would expect the vast majority of people to react to having killed someone. There does not appear to be any regret or remorse, though if that article is correct he went through some rough times emotionally so that may just be an impression gained by his dropping out of the media spotlight only to reappear to sell his gun. I'm willing to accept that he is deliberately creating this "hero" persona as a coping mechanism for emotional distress caused by having shot Martin, and the way he marketed the gun reinforces that "hero" persona. It may work for his emotional stability, but it's not making him any friends outside the gun-nut community.
Interesting idea Allan. Now let's try to sort through the possible emotional shit this hollowpoint might be splattering his way through.

I'm thinking something in Level 1, like delusional projection: "Delusions about external reality, usually of a persecutory nature." or "Extreme projection: The blatant denial of a moral or psychological deficiency...".
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
mousethief:Welcome to the Ship of Fools.
Yeah I know (I saw it just happened with you too).
Sometimes I feel like it's dangerous to say two things in the same post, because some fool will pounce on the one, and the other will be totally ignored. Or perhaps two things on the same day. Or week. Or perhaps to say anything at all in certain threads once the malaise has set in. When sputtering, drooling anger takes the place of rational discourse, rational discourse needs to find another gig.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
whether he really believes he was *the* victim, or is trying to believe that to quell whatever's going on inside him
I've said before that Zimmerman does not appear to be reacting in the way that I would expect the vast majority of people to react to having killed someone. There does not appear to be any regret or remorse, though if that article is correct he went through some rough times emotionally so that may just be an impression gained by his dropping out of the media spotlight only to reappear to sell his gun. I'm willing to accept that he is deliberately creating this "hero" persona as a coping mechanism for emotional distress caused by having shot Martin, and the way he marketed the gun reinforces that "hero" persona. It may work for his emotional stability, but it's not making him any friends outside the gun-nut community.
If you want to go down the track of outlining how people are "supposed" to react to events, just go and have a read about Lindy Chamberlain, and how lots of Australians decided she must have killed her baby daughter based on the fact that she didn't look upset enough on television.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
When you make a judgement specifically described as how you expect most people to react then you are also making a statement that some people react differently.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Anyone arguing that we should take all possible steps to avoid a potentially fatal confrontation
That's the flaw in your argument. No-one's arguing for all possible steps, rather for all reasonable steps.
Alan was also arguing that it's never reasonable to use deadly force to defend property. Which leaves the property owner in something of a quandary unless there's a clear distinction between the initial actions to defend her property and the subsequent actions to defend her life, especially when the actions to defend her life only became necessary because of the reaction of the burglar to her attempt to defend her property.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Only speaking of NSW, self-defence is never a defence to a a claim of intentional or reckless killing purely to protect property, prevent criminal trespass or to remove someone committing a criminal trespass (Crimes Act 1900 s.420).
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Alan was also arguing that it's never reasonable to use deadly force to defend property.
Alan will speak for himself but I think you are making a leap to get from there to all possible measures to avoid using deadly force. I would agree with not killing people in order to prevent them stealing my money. On the other hand if someone is in my house with a gun even if their likely motive is theft I think it is reasonable that deadly force is used in self-defence since it is reasonable to be concerned about a threat to life.

Likewise if someone is in my house fiddling with the safe it is reasonable for me to challenge them, including threatening them with a firearm if I have one. If at that point they charge at me then the situation changes and my life may be in danger and deadly force becomes reasonable. It wouldn't be reasonable to blow them away at the outset in case they charge at me.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Likewise if someone is in my house fiddling with the safe it is reasonable for me to challenge them, including threatening them with a firearm if I have one. If at that point they charge at me then the situation changes and my life may be in danger and deadly force becomes reasonable. It wouldn't be reasonable to blow them away at the outset in case they charge at me.
OK. So if you are a neighbourhood watch member in a gated community with a recent history of burglaries then is it reasonable to challenge someone who isn't known to you and who you perceive to be acting suspiciously? If so, then by your own argument it must also be reasonable to use deadly force in defence of your life if they respond to your challenge by, say, attacking you and smashing your head into the pavement.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Likewise if someone is in my house fiddling with the safe it is reasonable for me to challenge them, including threatening them with a firearm if I have one. If at that point they charge at me then the situation changes and my life may be in danger and deadly force becomes reasonable. It wouldn't be reasonable to blow them away at the outset in case they charge at me.
OK. So if you are a neighbourhood watch member in a gated community with a recent history of burglaries then is it reasonable to challenge someone who isn't known to you and who you perceive to be acting suspiciously?
No, no it isn't. It is reasonable to alert the authorities. That is it in that situation. Because not a damn thing is actually happening.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So if you are a neighbourhood watch member in a gated community with a recent history of burglaries then is it reasonable to challenge someone who isn't known to you and who you perceive to be acting suspiciously?
No, no it isn't. It is reasonable to alert the authorities. That is it in that situation. Because not a damn thing is actually happening.
No challenge is reasonable at all? Not "are you supposed to be here" (remember, this is a gated community) or "where are you going" or "what are you doing", or even "can I help you"? Nothing at all?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
To someone merely walking down a street? Doing not a damn thing illegal?
Why is immediate suspicion so palatable to you?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want to go down the track of outlining how people are "supposed" to react to events, just go and have a read about Lindy Chamberlain, and how lots of Australians decided she must have killed her baby daughter based on the fact that she didn't look upset enough on television.
There is a big difference between "not looking upset enough on television" and " making a goddamn trophy out of the gun you used to kill someone. "
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
If one is talking about a gated community of four houses and one could reasonably know everyone who ought to be in the gated community a challenge is reasonable. If not it isn't.

In any case I very much doubt that the sequence of events was "Hi do you mind me asking who you are?" to full on physical assault. It's not remotely credible.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want to go down the track of outlining how people are "supposed" to react to events, just go and have a read about Lindy Chamberlain, and how lots of Australians decided she must have killed her baby daughter based on the fact that she didn't look upset enough on television.
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
There is a big difference between "not looking upset enough on television" and " making a goddamn trophy out of the gun you used to kill someone. "
Yeah I was going to say that as well. It doesn't diagnose the mind-set of a killer but it does suggest real problems in valuing a human life.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Yeah I was going to say that as well. It doesn't diagnose the mind-set of a killer but it does suggest real problems in valuing a human life.
I don't think that Zimmerman's actions post-shooting give us much insight into his personality pre-shooting: it's quite possible the media vilification broke him.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
OK. So if you are a neighbourhood watch member in a gated community with a recent history of burglaries then is it reasonable to challenge someone who isn't known to you and who you perceive to be acting suspiciously?
No, no it isn't. It is reasonable to alert the authorities. That is it in that situation. Because not a damn thing is actually happening.
It depends what you mean by "challenge". It also depends on whether there is a public right of way through the gated community.

If there's no right of way, then a stranger could be trespassing. It's certainly reasonable to ask him what he's doing here - maybe he's visiting someone in one of the houses, but if he's not, then trespass is actually happening.

If there is a public right of way, then he's perfectly entitled to walk on it, even if he's a bit poor and scruffy and walking past some expensive houses. Being poor, or black, in a rich white neighbourhood isn't a crime - maybe he just likes to walk past nice houses and admire them.

It's still not unreasonable for a resident to walk over and say something like "Hi, I'm Jim, I haven't seen you around here before." Attempting to engage passers-by in conversation is also completely legal behaviour. But there's no obligation for the walker to respond in any way, and there are no grounds for the resident to attempt to impede his progress.

[ 19. May 2016, 18:20: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
just go and have a read about Lindy Chamberlain, and how lots of Australians decided she must have killed her baby daughter based on the fact that she didn't look upset enough on television.
Lindy's case is seared in my brain forever. My parents taught my brothers and me not to cry, we knew we'd be spanked twice as long if we cried. Now I can't cry in public at all, ever. I'm sure there were people at my mother's funeral that thought I didn't love her because I didn't cry.

Now I watch true crime shows like "Dateline," and "48 Hours," and see people charged with the murder of loved ones because they weren't crying enough at the scene and juries basing decisions on how much crying the suspect does and I live in fear.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
just go and have a read about Lindy Chamberlain, and how lots of Australians decided she must have killed her baby daughter based on the fact that she didn't look upset enough on television.
Lindy's case is seared in my brain forever. My parents taught my brothers and me not to cry, we knew we'd be spanked twice as long if we cried.
Absolutely same here, Twilght. This is exactly why the comparison irked me. There are all kinds of easily understandable reasons a person might not cry in public, but not a whole lot for auctioning off a gun you popped someone with on Ebay, even if it was genuinely self defense.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want to go down the track of outlining how people are "supposed" to react to events, just go and have a read about Lindy Chamberlain, and how lots of Australians decided she must have killed her baby daughter based on the fact that she didn't look upset enough on television.
There is a big difference between "not looking upset enough on television" and " making a goddamn trophy out of the gun you used to kill someone. "
It wouldn't have been a goddamn trophy though, would it? Why does anyone know who Zimmerman even is? It's not through self-promotion.

The only reason this gun can be a trophy to "the right" is because folk on "the left" howled about it so goddamn much. The gun isn't famous because he killed someone with it. the gun is famous because people caused an enormous media storm at the prospect of Zimmerman not being put on trial.

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
I don't think that Zimmerman's actions post-shooting give us much insight into his personality pre-shooting: it's quite possible the media vilification broke him.
Bingo.

[ 19. May 2016, 23:41: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
And now the gun is a symbol of him BEING put through a trial because of that media storm.

As much as I think trying to sell the gun is a dumb move, I think it's a thoroughly understandable move on his part.

Because thinking he ought to be remorseful in that way only makes sense if you're locked in the mindset that he was actually guilty of murder and "got away with it". From his point of view, though, he's been put through a shitstorm and it's the fault of people who wouldn't accept that he didn't have a legal case to answer. You think he ought to be remorseful about that? No, he's going to be angry about that. I sure as hell would be angry if people had forced me to be put on trial.

[ 19. May 2016, 23:49: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Why does anyone know who Zimmerman even is? It's not through self-promotion.
I suspect people know who Zimmerman is is because he shot an unarmed kid who was walking home from the store. In most of the world that would be front page news - and, that would be true if it was murder, self-defence or accidental. In the US, the normality of it required some (in)action by the police (not seeming to investigate immediately) to catapult it into public consciousness.

For the majority of people though I expect Zimmerman was forgotten as the case sank into the mass of other gun deaths, just another statistic, with people still using the #BlackLivesMatter largely ignorant of the particular black life that sparked it off.

Then Zimmerman auctions his gun. What the hell is that if not self-promotion?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
him BEING put through a trial because of that media storm.

...

I sure as hell would be angry if people had forced me to be put on trial.
Eh? Forced through a trial? He shot a kid, dead. Surely that action demands a thorough investigation to determine as far as possible the events that lead upto that? And, if there is any possibility that it wasn't self-defence then presenting the evidence to a jury is surely the right thing.

Is that not how the legal system works? We don't take the word of the killer when he says "It was self-defence. Look, I've a bump on the back of my head to prove it". The prosecution present their case with supporting evidence, the defence attempts to show there is reasonable doubt in the account of the prosecution, and the jury decides whether or not the prosecution evidence supports the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Is that not how the legal system works?
No. Normally the legal system does not work by people overriding the original decision of the prosecuting authorities by kicking up an enormous fuss. I'm not talking about how the trial was conducted, I'm talking about the fact that a trial was conducted at all.

Every day, the police and the director of public prosecutions (or whatever the equivalent office is called) make decisions about whether a case ought to be pursued further or not.

Normally, their decisions are not overturned by a loud ill-informed rabble who reduce the case to "he shot a kid dead" as if that is the sum total of what needs to be proved.

How do you know the investigation wasn't "thorough"? It sure seems to have been reasonably thorough given that it reached the same conclusion as the trial did. What exactly was achieved by that trial, other than making a right-wing cause out of Zimmerman? A celebrity who can now sell his gun for far more?

I've seen indications that the police proposed charging Zimmerman with manslaughter (but were advised by the prosecution that there wasn't sufficient prospect of a conviction). So any suggestion that the police just waved it all away and immediately accepted a bump on the head is yet more simplistic bunkum. They poked and probed his story.

[ 20. May 2016, 00:14: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Every day, the police and the director of public prosecutions (or whatever the equivalent office is called) make decisions about whether a case ought to be pursued further or not.
Of course they do. But, is it an everyday occurrence for that decision to be made within a few hours? Especially when there is someone dead? What I read said that Zimmerman was in custody for less than 6h, including the time spent on treating his head wound. It seems unbelievable that within those few hours the police had got the ballistics report and other forensics, that they had interviewed all the witnesses who had come forward, and done door to door enquiries in the neighbourhood to see who else might have seen something relevant and all the other routine steps in an investigation. And, then collated the evidence, presented it to the prosecutors office and considered whether the evidence was sufficiently clear to let Zimmerman go without charge or continue to investigate. They managed to do all that in a few hours?

That that very cursory investigation reached the same conclusion as the jury after a full investigation and trial doesn't alter the fact that it was a very cursory investigation.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Every day, the police and the director of public prosecutions (or whatever the equivalent office is called) make decisions about whether a case ought to be pursued further or not.
Of course they do. But, is it an everyday occurrence for that decision to be made within a few hours? Especially when there is someone dead? What I read said that Zimmerman was in custody for less than 6h, including the time spent on treating his head wound. It seems unbelievable that within those few hours the police had got the ballistics report and other forensics, that they had interviewed all the witnesses who had come forward, and done door to door enquiries in the neighbourhood to see who else might have seen something relevant and all the other routine steps in an investigation. And, then collated the evidence, presented it to the prosecutors office and considered whether the evidence was sufficiently clear to let Zimmerman go without charge or continue to investigate. They managed to do all that in a few hours?

That that very cursory investigation reached the same conclusion as the jury after a full investigation and trial doesn't alter the fact that it was a very cursory investigation.
And again, based on what I've seen, this is a misrepresentation of what actually happened. Do you honestly think that releasing someone means the investigation has ceased?

Do you believe that the only way to interview witnesses, gather forensics and what have you is to do it while someone sits in custody? The implications of that for the justice system are actually quite frightening. How long do you think the police could draw out such a system, repeatedly coming up with another thing they have to check out before they'll let you go?

The world is now driven all the time by knee-jerk reactions to surface events. No wonder all sorts of professions are finding it increasingly hard to do their actual job, because much of it occurs behind the scenes and the public is now so used to having everything splashed on their screens they're starting to believe that if it wasn't broadcast it didn't happen.

[ 20. May 2016, 01:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Do you honestly think that releasing someone means the investigation has ceased?
Everything I've read (at least those which go into any sort of detail) say he was "released without charge". That is more than just releasing someone, and strongly implies that the police see no reason to continue investigating. If they still considered charges possible then surely he would have been released on bail, or detained (subject to judicial process) if he was considered a danger to the public or a flight risk, while the investigation continued.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Do you honestly think that releasing someone means the investigation has ceased?
Everything I've read (at least those which go into any sort of detail) say he was "released without charge". That is more than just releasing someone, and strongly implies that the police see no reason to continue investigating.
Wow. You need some logic lessons then. Hell maybe you just need to watch some crime procedurals on TV.

Please feel free to explain how exactly one distinguishes between releasing without charge and ending the investigation, and releasing without charge while continuing to investigate, based not on an announcement about the investigation but the lack of a charge. This should be good.

And how one of them gets labelled as "just" releasing someone whereas the other kind of release is not "just" releasing. Even though the only action they both involve is (wait for it)... releasing.

I'll tell you what WOULD be more than "just" releasing. It would be charging and releasing. You're trying to make the absence of an event into something meaningful, not the presence of one.

[ 20. May 2016, 02:50: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Go and do some googling and you'll find signs of continued police activity between the night of the shooting and the day that Martin's father held a press conference calling for charges to be laid.

You'll find the medical examiner, you'll find the police talking to Martin's father, you'll find them talking to Zimmerman's neighbours. I can't be 100% positive at this instant because I can't find the relevant link again, but I believe you'll find them interviewing Zimmerman again.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Please feel free to explain how exactly one distinguishes between releasing without charge and ending the investigation, and releasing without charge while continuing to investigate, based not on an announcement about the investigation but the lack of a charge.
Releasing and ending the investigation. "You're free to go, we're not going to charge you with anything".

Releasing while continuing the investigation. "You're free to go. But don't leave town, we may want to question you further. Depending on the investigation we may charge you later, so keep in touch with your lawyer as well"

Of course, laws vary a bit with jurisdiction. But, I would expect in most places there's a maximum period you can be detained without charge (probably with some process whereby a judge can extend that by a short amount). After that the police would be required to release the suspect on bail, if there is insufficient evidence at that time to charge, or release without charge. The difference does, to my naive and non-lawyerly eye, imply that if there's the possibility of evidence that would warrant a charge then you release on bail, and if you think there is no charge to answer regardless of what further investigation may reveal you release without charge.

It is, of course, possible that the police release Zimmerman on bail and every single media outlet that I've seen was sloppy and reported that as released without charge. But, if that was the case then a statement to the effect of "he's been released on bail pending the conclusion of our investigation, when a decision on whether or not to charge him will be made" would have taken a lot of the wind from the sails of the petition to reopen the investigation and charge him. The momentum of the petition, the growing public appeal against the decision to release without charge, tends to imply no such statement was made.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And again, based on what I've seen, this is a misrepresentation of what actually happened. Do you honestly think that releasing someone means the investigation has ceased?

Do you believe that the only way to interview witnesses, gather forensics and what have you is to do it while someone sits in custody? The implications of that for the justice system are actually quite frightening. How long do you think the police could draw out such a system, repeatedly coming up with another thing they have to check out before they'll let you go?
Sadly Orfeo, that is what happens here. There is a whole series of offences in respect of which there is a presumption against a grant of bail - murder being one of these. An accused can easily be in gaol for 18 months before coming up for trial, and then be acquitted.

Had this event occurred here, Zimmerman would have been questioned, then charged with murder. He would have been committed for trial, and at trial would have been found not guilty after a defence of self-defence was run. The prosecution could not have proven beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had not acted to the extent necessary to protect himself. Until then he would almost certainly have been in custody. While he was languishing in gaol, the police would have been carrying out forensic testing of the gun, analysing blood samples, taking statements and following up anything that they may have suggested.

And things can go wrong. JB v R decided 3 weeks ago by the Court of Criminal Appeal is an example. At age 16, in 2010 JB was convicted of murder and sentenced to 16 years gaol before becoming eligible for parole, with an additional term of 7 years. Subsequent appeals were unsuccessful - the trial had been conducted correctly and the sentence was appropriate. Then new lawyers for JB found some additional material and petitioned for an enquiry into guilt. To cut a long story short, the petition was initially investigated by a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, who ended up telling the Court in 2015 that the conviction was in fact wrong. Part of the problem was that the police had not disclosed very relevant material. From 2010 until 2015 when the conviction was quashed JB was wrongly in gaol, in effect losing his late teen years.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Please feel free to explain how exactly one distinguishes between releasing without charge and ending the investigation, and releasing without charge while continuing to investigate, based not on an announcement about the investigation but the lack of a charge.
Releasing and ending the investigation. "You're free to go, we're not going to charge you with anything".

Releasing while continuing the investigation. "You're free to go. But don't leave town, we may want to question you further. Depending on the investigation we may charge you later, so keep in touch with your lawyer as well"
I'll use small words. Both of these look like release without charge on a media report.

Oh. And you apparently think police release people on bail? Have you NEVER watched a crime show? Bail is when someone has been charged and brought to court. If your argument is based on "the police didn't require bail" because in your addled mind the police can require bail from a person who hasn't been charged, then that explains a hell of a lot.

[ 20. May 2016, 05:40: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The only reason this gun can be a trophy to "the right" is because folk on "the left" howled about it so goddamn much. The gun isn't famous because he killed someone with it. the gun is famous because people caused an enormous media storm at the prospect of Zimmerman not being put on trial.
A load of manufactured outrage for the purpose petty political point scoring. Fancy seizing the otherwise unremarkable situation of a man shooting someone with a pretty shaky story about how it happened in the context of a series of stories about killing black people with impunity. Why can't people just quietly wait for due process to take its course without all this fuss?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
OK, that might be one of those differences in jurisdictions. In the UK the police may bail a suspect where:
quote:

 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
In the UK too, murder is one of the charges that does not get bail.

(The Re-writing the Archers thread is discussing some of these issues around a storyline of a very pregnant woman who has been gaslighted, raped (how she became pregnant) and when she tried to leave the partnership, telling him over a civilised meal serving a tuna bake, she had a knife put into her hands and was told to kill herself. Her son walked into the room, she felt he was threatened and stabbed her partner. The partner survived with severe injuries. She is remanded in custody awaiting trial, even after pleading not guilty. There is likely to be a self-defence plea, eventually. This is all in line with UK law.

The whole story line is reflecting a new law on the statute book, coercive control.)
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
OK, that might be one of those differences in jurisdictions. In the UK the police may bail a suspect where:
quote:
  • there is as yet insufficient evidence to charge a suspect and he is released pending further investigation
  • it is no longer necessary to detain a suspect to secure or preserve evidence or obtain it by questioning, yet the police are not in a position to charge
  • the custody officer has authorised the release of the suspect, having determined that there is currently insufficient evidence to charge, he may be released pending the obtaining of further evidence
  • the police consider that there is sufficient evidence to charge, but the matter must be referred to the CPS for a charging decision
*Reads legislation*

Whoa. That is just weird. I can't see anything in there that suggests money is involved, which I think is good but also means that it looks even less like "bail" as I know it.

Turns out such things can happen here as well, I just had a look at the NSW law. Even if it is normal, though, it doesn't help your original thoughts one iota. Released without charge on bail and released without charge without bail are both still "released without charge" no matter which way you slice it, and your continued insistence that released without charge equates with "case closed" is just wrong even on that UK legislation.

[ 20. May 2016, 06:02: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
As I understand it, the majority of bail in the UK (whether granted by police or courts) doesn't involve money, though usually will involve conditions such as reporting to a police station on a regular basis to confirm you haven't done a runner. It allows an innocent (until proven guilty) person to carry on with their lives while awaiting trial, and saves the tax payer a small fortune by not locking up people who have yet to be convicted of anything - not to mention the injustice and resulting compensation if they are found not guilty. Of course, for more serious crimes bail is less likely to be given and may involve other guarantees and conditions - but serious crimes are, of course, the minority of offences that come before the courts.

I thought I was making a distinction between "released on bail" (pending potential charges, or after being charged) with "released without charge" (which to me still sounds very much like meaning no potential charges). Of course, I'm reading that from a UK perspective and it's entirely possible that in the US "without charge" is read as simply "without yet being charged". But, that would seem inconsistent with the petitioners who signed up to appeal against his release without charge, presumably considering that he would never be charged - not that those who signed the petition are necessarily any better versed in the legal system of Florida than I am.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Bugger the petitioners. Do you expect the police to tell everyone the details of their investigations?

As I've said, you can find stuff online that indicates police were doing things in the period before there was any publicity.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Orfeo, I don't speak of other jurisdictions in Aust, but here in NSW police of a certain rank have powers to grant or dispense with bail at the police station - have a look at the Bail Act 2013 s.43 for the power and when it may or may not be exercised. It very commonly is for minor offences.

Alan Cresswell, it is common for actual cold hard cash to be required in NSW. Sometimes security can be taken. From time to time, bail is forfeited and a person affected may make application for return of money/discharge of forfeiture. The court to which the application was made used be called the Estreats Court, in a fine bit of Middle English carried on. Not sure if it still has that name.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Here in my town in Ohio, we had a toddler go missing from his home. The whole community came out and searched. After he was found, drowned in a pond close to his parents' house, we all mourned, all the churches prayed, we had special fund raisers, the sheriff thanked the community and asked us to pray for the family, etc.

Six months later the mother was arrested and charged with manslaughter. This in the paper:
quote:
[Sheriff's name] explained his office’s investigative process. “We dealt with this investigation like we do every investigation, we are fact finders,” he said. “We submit the evidence to the prosecutor for review and he then decides if it goes to a grand jury to let a panel of independent citizens decide if any charges should be brought forth. In this case, the grand jury felt that charges against the mother were warranted.”
That's how it should be done. Not a whisper of suspicion ahead of time -- certainly not, "We didn't charge her with anything, but she's a trashy looking piece so we're investigating."
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Bugger the petitioners. Do you expect the police to tell everyone the details of their investigations?
In a racially charged atmosphere of this nature yes. Failure to communicate is to ignore the community aspects of policing and the need for community-level consent of the population. If the police get this wrong then law and order will break down. Your posts are from the point of view of one who trusts authority. I'm often in a similar position myself, but in this case authority had lost the trust of the population, or sections of the population, in a pretty fundamental way.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
OK, that might be one of those differences in jurisdictions. In the UK the police may bail a suspect where:
quote:
  • there is as yet insufficient evidence to charge a suspect and he is released pending further investigation
  • it is no longer necessary to detain a suspect to secure or preserve evidence or obtain it by questioning, yet the police are not in a position to charge
  • the custody officer has authorised the release of the suspect, having determined that there is currently insufficient evidence to charge, he may be released pending the obtaining of further evidence
  • the police consider that there is sufficient evidence to charge, but the matter must be referred to the CPS for a charging decision
*Reads legislation*

Whoa. That is just weird. I can't see anything in there that suggests money is involved, which I think is good but also means that it looks even less like "bail" as I know it.

Turns out such things can happen here as well, I just had a look at the NSW law. Even if it is normal, though, it doesn't help your original thoughts one iota. Released without charge on bail and released without charge without bail are both still "released without charge" no matter which way you slice it, and your continued insistence that released without charge equates with "case closed" is just wrong even on that UK legislation.
In the US, police don't decide on bail - that's for the courts.

In most jurisdictions here, the police/district attorney have up to 72 hours after an arrest to charge or release a suspect (this varies somewhat among jurisdictions, but there's always a maximum limit.) If, within that timeframe, they don't have enough evidence to charge the suspect, s/he must be released - note that this does not necessarily mean the investigation has ended.

If, on the other hand, the district attorney feels they have enough evidence to bring charges, the suspect will be arraigned and make a plea (guilty, not guilty, etc.) - at this point, the court will decide what amount of bail (if any) is appropriate. The DA can argue for a specific level of bail, or that the suspect be held for trial without bail, but the court ultimately makes that call - not the DA or the police.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Bugger the petitioners. Do you expect the police to tell everyone the details of their investigations?
In a racially charged atmosphere of this nature yes. Failure to communicate is to ignore the community aspects of policing and the need for community-level consent of the population. If the police get this wrong then law and order will break down. Your posts are from the point of view of one who trusts authority.
orfeo is also referencing it from the perspective of a finished case. Prior to the trial and investigations, all anyone else had was the perspective of history. And history shows that black people will not get the same treatment as white. (Or whitish people)
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

I'm often in a similar position myself, but in this case authority had lost the trust of the population, or sections of the population, in a pretty fundamental way.
Authority never possessed that trust from black people in America.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
A slight generalization; I imagine the outgoing president may have a more nuanced view. But I guess your main point is that it was starting from a bad place.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In the US, the normality of [a shooting] required some (in)action by the police (not seeming to investigate immediately) to catapult it into public consciousness.
It was partly that, but also that everyone thought the idea of Zimmerman needing to defend himself from a boy with Skittles was ludicrous.

If these photos had been released on day one then the press coverage would have gone very differently.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
True, though that looks like a fairly superficial wound.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
True, though that looks like a fairly superficial wound.
They're not dangerous wounds, but being pinned down and beaten like that would have been a genuinely terrifying experience for a lot of people. The screaming and begging was undoubtedly (IMO) from Zimmerman, not Martin.

More importantly, the photos would have confirmed Zimmerman's story, showed the police had legitimate reason for accepting self-defence, and destroyed the narrative of Martin just being a little kid with candy.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
My husband eats Skittles, Twizzlers, Bulls Eyes, Gummy Worms, Root Beer Barrels, and Jujubes. Crappy candy knows no age limit.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
True, though that looks like a fairly superficial wound.
They're not dangerous wounds, but being pinned down and beaten like that would have been a genuinely terrifying experience for a lot of people. The screaming and begging was undoubtedly (IMO) from Zimmerman, not Martin.

More importantly, the photos would have confirmed Zimmerman's story, showed the police had legitimate reason for accepting self-defence, and destroyed the narrative of Martin just being a little kid with candy.
It was still a significantly disproportionate reaction. I am regularly trained to protect myself from people trying to hit, kick, grab and strangle me - I am not expected kill them. I was taught ground defence as an 11 year old school girl, it did not involve killing people then either.

I use the term trained losely, nothing we are taught is rocket science. Nothing I was taught as a child was complex either.

My problem is with the attitude that it is OK to kill to protect property or to prevent yourself being physically hurt.

It is defensible to kill to prevent yourself or someone else dying, this is not the same thing as killing someone in case they break your nose.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
For a start, if he had a hand free to use a pistol, he could have used it to block, or to punch the boy the face - or in the bollocks which might have been more effective than the face. Or he could have headbutted him.

There are more options than kill, or lie still and scream.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Also, Martin was not on top of Zimmerman when the shooting happened. Either Martin had decided that was enough of a beating for the jerk who was following him and was backing away to go home, or Zimmerman had already managed to push him off. At the moment the gun was fired Zimmerman was not actually having his head bashed into the concrete.

You want to know how I know that? Simple, those pictures of Zimmerman in the back of a police car with his nose bleeding. He's wearing an orange fleece jacket that is basically clean. If Martin had been on top of him pummelling his face when that bullet passed through his chest then Zimmerman would have been covered in blood. No blood = significant distance between the two at that point in time.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Anyway, surely if you have someone on top of you and you have a pistol to you say get the fuck off me or I'll shoot you. And then you shoot them in an easily accessible limb.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re bail in the US:

NPR's "Fresh Air" recently had a show on "Is America Engaged In A 'Vicious Circle' Of Jailing The Poor?" (Audio, with text excerpts.) It talked about poor people who've been arrested for low-level offenses often get stuck in jail, because they can't pay bail. Their lives can be wrecked: loss of work, housing, spouse, family, custody, etc. Sometimes, they even have to *pay* for a public defender.

Harrowing.

[ 21. May 2016, 00:19: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
A slight generalization; I imagine the outgoing president may have a more nuanced view. But I guess your main point is that it was starting from a bad place.
I suspect his view is pretty much the same. And, when he was elected, his wife said that it was the first time she felt proud of her country. She caught a lot of flack for saying that.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
At some point in one's career rise one becomes part of the establishment that people have or don't have trust in. I would say that the head of state is likely past that point. And I think you are over-interpreting a fragment of a quote from Michelle Obama that was blown out of proportion and out of context by the press at the time.

Some black people are in the police force, some are prosecutors, judges, sheriffs. To say black people as a block don't trust authority is going to far. I think most people would agree that levels of trust are generally lower among black people and there are certain communities in particular areas where levels of trust are rock-bottom.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
For a start, if he had a hand free to use a pistol, he could have used it to block, or to punch the boy the face - or in the bollocks which might have been more effective than the face. Or he could have headbutted him.

There are more options than kill, or lie still and scream.
What other options there are is irrelevant, under the law of many countries including your own.

The question is whether the option chosen is reasonable. Now, I accept what you said in the post before this one: there are certainly valid arguments that shooting is a disproportionate response. In some cultures it might be seen as more "proportionate" than others.

But a list of other things that Zimmerman might have done is not relevant to the law in the USA or in the UK or in Australia. Because what you can come up with after the fact is hardly any guide to what someone would come up with in the situation. You have all the time in the world to compose your thoughts and point out better options. He didn't.

[ 21. May 2016, 08:24: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Also, Martin was not on top of Zimmerman when the shooting happened. Either Martin had decided that was enough of a beating for the jerk who was following him and was backing away to go home, or Zimmerman had already managed to push him off. At the moment the gun was fired Zimmerman was not actually having his head bashed into the concrete.

You want to know how I know that? Simple, those pictures of Zimmerman in the back of a police car with his nose bleeding. He's wearing an orange fleece jacket that is basically clean. If Martin had been on top of him pummelling his face when that bullet passed through his chest then Zimmerman would have been covered in blood. No blood = significant distance between the two at that point in time.
Why hire a ballistics expert or a forensics technician trained in blood splatter when you can have Alan's armchair knowledge? [Roll Eyes]

I'm tempted to go see if I can find anything from, oh I don't know, the trial transcripts and reports on this question, but I'm sure no-one even thought about such issues as the relative location of the shooter and victim before Alan. Right?

Seriously, that is one of the stupidest declarations of "knowledge" I have ever seen. Use some fucking Google-fu to discover the actual evidence from the trial. I mean, it's vaguely possible that your assertion is correct, but to claim yourself as the source of your certainty on such a basic question that clearly would have been the subject of trial evidence is an idiotic move.

[ 21. May 2016, 08:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
First articles I found, Alan. I haven't even read them beyond the headline.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/09/nation/la-na-0710-zimmerman-trial-20130710

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/09/forensic-expert-says-zimmerman-on-bottom-fired-at-close-range/
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I've watched CSI and Dexter. I thought that was enough?

I did look to see if I could find any of the forensics reported. All I could find was that the gun shot was to the chest, that it was fired from close range (a few inches), and that it wasn't immediately fatal and Martin took a minute or so to die as he bled out. There was presumably forensic analysis of Zimmermans clothing, looking for all the fine blood splatter that would have given more information. And, ballistics would give an indication of the relative position of Martin and the gun. But, I couldn't see any media reporting of that.

However, if Martin was above Zimmerman how would you explain the absence of large quantities of blood on Zimmerman? The obvious conclusion, just on pure logic, is that the situation reported by the eye witness of Martin being over Zimmerman and punching him had changed by the time the gun was fired.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Actually I equally googled and found the ballistics reports and initial police reports - both linked to this document. The first police report wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
However, if Martin was above Zimmerman how would you explain the absence of large quantities of blood on Zimmerman?
I wouldn't. I'd ask a fucking forensics expert.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Your posts are from the point of view of one who trusts authority.
Perhaps, but it's more that my posts are from the point of view of an introvert who works in government and knows how utterly toxic the demand for instant answers can be.

My job is driven by analysis, and while sometimes we have to work quickly it's never preferable and always make me nervous about the quality of the work. And I often feel that part of my job is to check whether other people have thought things through properly.

The answer is frequently no. Very recently I had a situation where something had to be completed in the space of one day, and one of the most frustrating things about it was that a couple of hours of the morning were occupied by getting people to wind back ideas that were flat out erroneous. I'm very glad that I had the whole day, and not less than that, and didn't have people demanding that I just type what they wanted me to type, because what they wanted me to type was wrong.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Actually I equally googled and found the ballistics reports and initial police reports - both linked to this document. The first police report wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter.
Thanks CK. A couple of times in there it says something about being consistent with a "contact shot".

Which according to Wikipedia
means what I think it means.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
However, if Martin was above Zimmerman how would you explain the absence of large quantities of blood on Zimmerman?
I wouldn't. I'd ask a fucking forensics expert.
If it was a court of law, sure. If we were actually trying to work out what happened, of course. But, we're not doing any of that. That's been done, the jury concluded there was insufficient evidence for a murder conviction. We're not going to do any better, and there's no point even trying. That's so obvious I'm not sure it needs to be pointed out.

What we are doing is moaning about a state of affairs where the prevalence of guns, and the casual acceptance of carrying them when going on an errand to the shops, results in innocent people getting shot dead. We're moaning about a state of affairs where it is legally acceptable to use disproportionate force in self defence. About situations where someone can sell a weapon online to who-knows-who, and can profit from shooting someone. And, thrown into that are some complaints about the perception of police procedure when investigating a lethal shooting (in the context of which we get into what was reported and public statements by the police, because no one apart from those directly concerns reads the court transcripts), an apparent casualness about responding to a shooting that in most of the world would be a major investigation.

And, we're moaning about a particular incident, because we can't moan about 30,000 of them. 30,000 people shot is too big a number to be anything other than a horrendous statistic, it's too big to have a human face. Trayvon Martin we can relate to, a kid walking home from the store with a pocket full of candy is someone we recognise. Most of us have been that kid walking from the store with a pocketful of candy. We all recognise that his death was wrong. And, we all recognise that it wouldn't have happened if there were sensible laws about who can own guns, how they are stored, that they are not carried around on a simple errand etc

I'm having a moan because I'm not wanting to work myself up to a rant. Besides which, as was said earlier, we're nit-picking because fundamentally we're agreeing with each other and no one is coming along and saying something outrageously stupid that we can rip into.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
No, what you, specifically, are doing, is making up your own version of the EVIDENCE. This isn't just about a court of law, this is about you fucking well deciding that you can't be arsed with something like the official reports.

Why the fuck does the scientific evidence about a contact shot suddenly change outside a court of law? That's got fucking NOTHING to do with onus of proof. At all.

You've watched too many TV shows where blood spatters everywhere and have decided that a CHEST SHOT ought to produce blood going everywhere just like the head shots too.

It's totally possible to mount an argument that Zimmerman was in the moral wrong when he shot Martin. But how the fuck do you bolster that argument by wilfully ignoring physical evidence to make it look as if Zimmerman behaved more badly? How is that any different to the doctoring of the phone call to make him look more racist?

Fuck me Alan but you're being a total moron right now. And you're proving absolutely everything about why we have courts of law in the first place. So that your "gut feel" that someone is in the wrong based on what you saw on a television screen doesn't twist things like scientific evidence about how close the shot was.

[ 21. May 2016, 09:25: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
You were the one that had said I needed to watch more TV shows to learn about how the law works. Now I've watched too many? Can we have it one way or the other?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You were the one that had said I needed to watch more TV shows to learn about how the law works. Now I've watched too many? Can we have it one way or the other?
No. Because logically there's no difference between you being wrong because you know nothing and you being wrong because you think you know more than you actually do.

Seriously, I cannot believe that you, a person I consider to have scientific knowledge, are just making shit up about the distance of the shot and then saying "hey, it doesn't matter because we're not in a court room". You simply don't fucking care about finding out what actually happened because you've decided you know what the judgment should be.

It's one thing to argue the morals of the case. It's quite another to just invent random shit about how you "know" Martin wasn't on top of Zimmerman in your desperation to prove you've won the moral argument.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Of course we need courts to review the evidence, and juries to make decisions about whether that evidence passes a test of "beyond all reasonable doubt". Who has denied that?

The petition started by the family of Trayvon Martin was nothing to do with the verdict delivered by the court. It was that someone had decided that the courts didn't need to see the evidence at all. Or, at the least that their actions had created that perception. And, of course, it also links into the whole pile of crap that is race relations in the US.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Seriously, I cannot believe that you ... are just making shit up about the distance of the shot
In regard to the distance of the shot, all I've said is that the media reports I'd seen had said that it was very close range, within a few inches of Martins' chest. As far as I'm aware all the more detailed information you've spent your time digging out has said more or less the same thing.

And, as you know in this area I'm as much a layperson as anyone else who isn't a forensics expert. That I have particular knowledge in one field of science doesn't make me an expert where the extent of my studies has been watching a few crime dramas and the occasional TV documentary.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Oh come off it. That is NOT all you've said. I wouldn't be wasting my evening on this if that was all you tried to convey. You've specifically proposed a scenario where Martin was backing away. You've specifically argued THEY WERE NOT CLOSE TO EACH OTHER.

It seems it's not enough for you for Zimmerman to have been wrong to have followed Martin in the first place and to there have been a confrontation.

No, now you have to bolster the wrong by telling us you're sure that Martin wasn't on top of Zimmerman at the time of the shot.

That's what I find outrageous. Again I ask: how this is any different to the doctoring of the phone call that was done to make Zimmerman look more racist?

If he's guilty (in a moral sense, let's forget the court room), you should be able to argue that from the things we can be confident about. Not make stuff up to bolster your position. If you want to claim the moral high ground, you're choosing a damn funny way to reach it.

[ 21. May 2016, 09:50: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Trayvon Martin we can relate to, a kid walking home from the store with a pocket full of candy is someone we recognise. Most of us have been that kid walking from the store with a pocketful of candy.
And what did most of us do if we saw a man on the way home?

I am seriously sick of a narrative that equates Trayvon Martin with... some kind of sweet 8-year-old. It's completely fucking disingenuous.

I am sick of the notion that being a "kid" makes him inherently harmless. I am sick of the notion that being unarmed makes him inherently harmless. It's total bullshit. Yes, not having a weapon is relevant, but to equate that to him being some kind of helpless victim? No.

And I am really sick of the repeated idiocy that says that what he bought at a store has the slightest relevance. People can rob banks with candy in their pockets. They can rape women with candy in their pockets. They can siphon off millions of dollars from bank accounts while chewing gum. It is a stupid piece of detail inserted purely for emotive effect. I don't care whether he had candy, cigarettes, condoms, cheese or coriander in his pocket.

[ 21. May 2016, 10:11: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
What I found frustrating about Zimmerman etc is how reluctant people have been to modify their views in the light of new information, and how instead dissenters have been attacked (often as racists). There was almost no acknowledgement that it was a mistake to think of Martin as a helpless child or to dismiss Zimmerman's injuries; and that having been entirely wrong on such key issues maybe we ought to have a bit of soul-searching and be careful about jumping to conclusions in future.

Not only did this not happen, the exact situation repeated itself in Fergusson. As a strong progressive (at the time) I found it unnerving to watch my side show all the same biases that I'd attributed to conservatives.

Part of the problem is that initial impressions make a gigantic difference, as spin doctors know. If we'd seen Zimmerman's bloody face and smashed nose at the start then there'd have been no widespread outcry, but once the idea of him as a monster became fixed it was very hard to dislodge. It's even tougher when political enemies take the opposite position - then you end up with very smart people like Alan making terrible arguments about blood splatter and considering them conclusive. Or countless others who were wrong about Zimmerman's beating but are still 100% sure he's wicked.

(orfeo, in case you have any spare reading time I again recommend Thinking, Fast and Slow. It talks about these issues.)
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It was still a significantly disproportionate reaction. [...] It is defensible to kill to prevent yourself or someone else dying, this is not the same thing as killing someone in case they break your nose.
Hi Doublethink,

I agree, but Zimmerman testified that Martin was going for his gun. I'm not entirely convinced - it seems just likely that he panicked and went for it himself. But there's no physical evidence either way, and considering how much of the rest of Zimmerman's story panned out, I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. YMMV. Either way, it seems likely that Zimmerman was genuinely terrified.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh come off it. That is NOT all you've said. I wouldn't be wasting my evening on this if that was all you tried to convey. You've specifically proposed a scenario where Martin was backing away. You've specifically argued THEY WERE NOT CLOSE TO EACH OTHER.
I've said very little about the distance between them, except that they were close enough for the gun muzzle to be no more than a few inches from Martin - which puts them at arms length and no more. On an assumption, that may be incorrect, that a hole in the chest would result in a lot of blood and that gravity wasn't suspended (a more likely to be correct assumption) I did say that it seemed very unlikely that the situation reported by witnesses just before the gun shot (Zimmerman on the ground, Martin above him) was still the situation when the gun was fired. Of course, if a gunshot wound in the chest doesn't result in blood falling towards the ground then I could be wrong. So, IF I'm right and the struggle between the two had resulted in a slightly different geometry then the claim (made by others equally unqualified to comment as I am) that it was clearly self-defence because Martin was on top of Zimmerman pounding him with his fists is unsound.

Yes, I speculated (and, clearly so) that one of the possibilities was that after giving him a good thump on the nose Martin considered that that was enough. But, when it comes down to it there is no evidence - even if someone had got a camera out and videod the fight and gunshot we would still have zip on what Martin was thinking.

quote:
That's what I find outrageous. Again I ask: how this is any different to the doctoring of the phone call that was done to make Zimmerman look more racist?
In part because I've not tried to pretend I'm anyone other than a not very well informed layman speculating. If someone actually thinks I'm putting forward anything other than speculation they're more of a moron than you're accusing me of being. Doctoring a phone call is deliberate deception, or an attempt at that anyway.


quote:
If he's guilty (in a moral sense, let's forget the court room), you should be able to argue that from the things we can be confident about. Not make stuff up to bolster your position. If you want to claim the moral high ground, you're choosing a damn funny way to reach it.
I don't really need to justify that it is morally wrong to kill another human being. "Though shalt not kill" rather covers that. Of course, the law has to take a slightly different line than my morality, and I'm fine with that (I'd actually be deeply concerned if my moral code was somehow decided to be the arbiter of the law). So, I can say that the shooting of anyone is morally wrong, while accepting that it may be legal (and, that would be a decision of the courts).

Apart from a few very evident diversions into speculation what I have said has been based on what is generally agreed. Zimmerman saw a kid walking down the road in the rain, and for some reason (unfathomable to me) decided this looked suspicious. He called the police to report it. He followed Martin, obviously not very subtly since the phone call says that Martin saw him and looked directly at Zimmerman, and the account of his girlfriend who was talking to at the time supports that. Martin (possibly unwisely as it happens, but teenagers aren't renowned for wisdom) decided to run - which IMO isn't unreasonable when someone starts to obviously tail you. A few minutes later after a gap in the evidence (so what happened between is unknown) the two are fighting, on the ground, Zimmerman gets a punch in the face and his head hits concrete. Another short gap in the evidence, and Zimmerman fires the fatal shot from close range. Any disagreement with that outline of the facts?

What I have speculated on is what might have happened in those two gaps in the evidence. How did the two meet up again? What caused things to escalate to punches getting thrown? What happened that allowed Zimmerman to get his gun out and shoot Martin? I doubt even Zimmerman would be able to fill out the full story.

Am I trying to bolster my moral position? I didn't think so, but maybe you read my posts as doing so. According to my moral position, it is wrong that Martin is dead, it is wrong for someone to kill someone else, it may be morally less wrong to kill to prevent yourself/someone else being killed (which requires an instant judgement on the likelihood of that happening, and therefore some accommodation for mistakes), it is certainly morally wrong to use lethal force to defend against a lesser offence - whether that's injury or theft. I've stated that before, and no one has really questioned it. If you really want to discuss whether there are occasions on which it isn't morally wrong to kill someone, perhaps you can start such a discussion.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
very smart people like Alan making terrible arguments about blood splatter and considering them conclusive.
Just for the record, I made no argument about blood splatter. I made a comment about blood falling from a wound, I know enough (from CSI and Dexter) to know that those are different phenomena. And, I never claimed anything conclusive, just speculatively that I found it incredible that if Martin was leaning over/kneeling on Zimmerman when he was shot that the wound didn't bleed and the blood didn't fall onto Zimmerman. So incredible infact that I suggested it more likely that Martin was not, at that moment, leaning over/kneeling on Zimmerman. But, what do I know. I'm just some moron who watches too much and too little TV.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
What I found frustrating about Zimmerman etc is how reluctant people have been to modify their views in the light of new information, and how instead dissenters have been attacked (often as racists). There was almost no acknowledgement that it was a mistake to think of Martin as a helpless child or to dismiss Zimmerman's injuries; and that having been entirely wrong on such key issues maybe we ought to have a bit of soul-searching and be careful about jumping to conclusions in future.

Not only did this not happen, the exact situation repeated itself in Fergusson. As a strong progressive (at the time) I found it unnerving to watch my side show all the same biases that I'd attributed to conservatives.

Part of the problem is that initial impressions make a gigantic difference, as spin doctors know. If we'd seen Zimmerman's bloody face and smashed nose at the start then there'd have been no widespread outcry, but once the idea of him as a monster became fixed it was very hard to dislodge. It's even tougher when political enemies take the opposite position - then you end up with very smart people like Alan making terrible arguments about blood splatter and considering them conclusive. Or countless others who were wrong about Zimmerman's beating but are still 100% sure he's wicked.

(orfeo, in case you have any spare reading time I again recommend Thinking, Fast and Slow. It talks about these issues.)
I wishlisted it when you mentioned it previously.

You've hit exactly on all my frustrations about this stuff. I won't claim I'm immune to jumping to conclusions and holding biases - far from it - but it truly alarms me how much of the world is locked into first impressions, and I think it's getting worse. People become notorious over something on social media and it's the end of them.

And part of why it's so scary is because media reporting is so shit. I've lost count of the number of times that I've been frustrated because a story is incomplete and it's impossible to get better information because everyone is just repeating the same thing in an echo chamber, and that's just the times I'm aware of it.

Martin and Zimmerman isn't a story, it's a meme. And so is so much of what passes for news these days. We want everything reduced to one-liners that can be replicated in an image shared on Facebook. And I do share images on Facebook, but the world is so much more than what can be expressed in a GIF.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I don't really need to justify that it is morally wrong to kill another human being. "Though shalt not kill" rather covers that.
It does if you accept that as an accurate translation. What a pity the Bible also has a considerable number of bits about putting people to death.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
For a start, if he had a hand free to use a pistol, he could have used it to block, or to punch the boy the face - or in the bollocks which might have been more effective than the face. Or he could have headbutted him.

There are more options than kill, or lie still and scream.
What other options there are is irrelevant, under the law of many countries including your own.

The question is whether the option chosen is reasonable. Now, I accept what you said in the post before this one: there are certainly valid arguments that shooting is a disproportionate response. In some cultures it might be seen as more "proportionate" than others.

But a list of other things that Zimmerman might have done is not relevant to the law in the USA or in the UK or in Australia. Because what you can come up with after the fact is hardly any guide to what someone would come up with in the situation. You have all the time in the world to compose your thoughts and point out better options. He didn't.
The options are relevant, because they form the context for a jury to decide what is a proportionate response. What people may actually do, as opposed to what it is lawful for them to do is the metaphysical gap in which crimes occur.

My point about the options I listed is they are not complex, and they are things I believe would occur to a reasonable person in that situation.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
It really is odd that the Zimmerman/Martin case has sparked international outrage, while thousands of cases of gun violence barely make the news.

Here's an example of another African-America 17 year-old involved in a murder case. Even though it's in my area I wouldn't even have been aware of it if I hadn't happened to catch it on the local news last night. Our gun problems go far beyond a questionable self-defense case. Here.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
But the police report that came with the ballistics report recommended Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter, so this isn't all community outrage and internet meme, although the demonisation is an unnecessary added extra.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It really is odd that the Zimmerman/Martin case has sparked international outrage, while thousands of cases of gun violence barely make the news.
It happens all the time, the media focus on one story at the expense of others.

What marks Zimmerman out as different? Many gun deaths are directly linked to crime, a group of addicts getting shot in a crack house comes under the banner of criminal activity or gang violence. Martin was unarmed and not involved in any criminal activity, at least up until the point he started to punch Zimmerman. What really made Zimmerman different was the response afterwards, by whatever accident of timing (maybe it was a slow news day) or roll of the dice the petition got noticed. It caught a particular mood in the country as a string of videos appeared of police over zealousness in handling black suspects, with a string of stories of black (usually) young men dying in police custody, and the #BlackLivesMatter hit the mood of a large proportion of the population and went viral. But, it would have remained largely forgotten, a footnote in history related to the origin of the hashtag, if Zimmerman hadn't made a big thing of selling the gun.

And, as I said before the statistics are too big for most people to comprehend. We comprehend putting faces to the issue, we need to bring these things down to a human scale. It's not just gun violence, any massive tragedy is the same - an earthquake that kills thousands is widely reported, but it's the stories of individuals (a few among thousands) desperately digging through the remains of their house for a missing child that catch our hearts and emotions. An accident of timing with relation to what else was happening in the US and the world at the time, and it was the face of Trayvon Martin that was the individual who represents the thousands of others.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Another harmless teenager. The idea that Zimmerman was foolish to be afraid of one so young is -- foolish.

here.

It makes me wonder why we're even talking about the Zimmerman case again when this is a thread about the endless, daily, needless deaths that happen because Americans can't part with their beloved guns. They think the constitution is more holy than the word of God. Their daddies took them hunting when they were four and it's a great memory, they love their collection, they like rubbing the oil into the shaft, they think target practice is the most exciting thing ever, they belong to gun clubs when no other clubs would have them, they think it's a sport when they're too out of shape for real sports, they only feel safe with their guns, they only feel like men with their guns. And the result is innocent people and real children die every day.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Just for the record, I made no argument about blood splatter.
Fair enough Alan - not sure what else to call it though.

And also just for the record, I wasn't calling you a moron in the slightest. I simply felt your preconceptions about Zimmerman made you uncritical of an argument you wouldn't touch normally.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It really is odd that the Zimmerman/Martin case has sparked international outrage, while thousands of cases of gun violence barely make the news.
It happens all the time, the media focus on one story at the expense of others.
Scott Alexander has a theory on this. He argues that clear-cut examples of a cause (say, police brutality) flare up quickly in the news but are soon forgotten about because everyone agrees they were awful. When you have a more controversial example though, a load of opponents spring up to say "whoa, hang on!" and the story gets a much longer life.

Eric Garner was choked by police in New York. In many ways this was a much better poster child for police brutality than Michael Brown's death in Ferguson. But everyone agreed Garner's killing was awful and not everyone thought the same about Ferguson, so Garner was soon forgotten while Ferguson turned into a gigantic and highly memorable shitstorm.

The depressing upshot is that causes become known for their worse, most divisive examples.

Trayvon Martin's case was famous before it became controversial, perhaps due a perfect combination of cute photo, Skittles, racial fears, negligent police and apparently senseless killing. But the controversy doubtless helped keep it popular as time went on, and by the end it had very much become another front of the Culture War.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
Some evidence:

The Young Turks 08/03/16. When they first learn about Martin they're very angry (about the shooting).

The Young Turks, 15/07/13. 16 months later, after the trial they wanted, now they're furious (at the other side).

Similar conversations will be happening on conservative sites. Behold, Culture War.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

Some black people are in the police force, some are prosecutors, judges, sheriffs.
Some of them do not trust the justice system because they know it from the inside. Some are in those positions because government has been a more realistic route to financial stability than the private sector.
quote:

To say black people as a block don't trust authority is going to far.
I disagree, but it is nuanced.
quote:

I think most people would agree that levels of trust are generally lower among black people and there are certain communities in particular areas where levels of trust are rock-bottom.
IME, black Americans have a lower trust in their justice system and with reason. I saw a report that began with the assertion of black Americans have more trust in the federal government than white people. Set my head a twirl. Then I read the whole thing and I think it does a better job of explaining the dynamics than I can.
The link.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
... Americans can't part with their beloved guns. They think the constitution is more holy than the word of God. Their daddies took them hunting when they were four and it's a great memory, they love their collection, they like rubbing the oil into the shaft, they think target practice is the most exciting thing ever, they belong to gun clubs when no other clubs would have them, they think it's a sport when they're too out of shape for real sports, they only feel safe with their guns, they only feel like men with their guns. And the result is innocent people and real children die every day.
Now that I totally agree with. But what the hell do we do about it? How do we convince these people that some people should not have penis toys? That maybe they themselves don't need a penis toy because the risks far outweigh the benefits?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You have all the time in the world to compose your thoughts and point out better options. He didn't.
He had plenty of time to avoid a conflict in the first place. To paraphrase Mr. Miyagi. The best way to avoid a confrontation which may lead to killing another human for no damn good reason, no be there.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Trayvon Martin we can relate to, a kid walking home from the store with a pocket full of candy is someone we recognise. Most of us have been that kid walking from the store with a pocketful of candy.
And what did most of us do if we saw a man on the way home?

I am seriously sick of a narrative that equates Trayvon Martin with... some kind of sweet 8-year-old. It's completely fucking disingenuous.
It doesn't matter. He could have been Jack the Fucking Ripper possessing the Rock's body, he was doing nothing wrong. And had as much right as Zimmerman to be on those streets. Zimmerman created a situation of threat.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Behold, Culture War.
That video is fucking brilliant.

It does a rather good job of helping me understand why Alan's sneering dislike of killing can be translated into being seen as a potentially society-crushing drive to override justice systems.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Yeah. Brilliant. We have met the thought germs and they are us.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You have all the time in the world to compose your thoughts and point out better options. He didn't.
He had plenty of time to avoid a conflict in the first place. To paraphrase Mr. Miyagi. The best way to avoid a confrontation which may lead to killing another human for no damn good reason, no be there.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Trayvon Martin we can relate to, a kid walking home from the store with a pocket full of candy is someone we recognise. Most of us have been that kid walking from the store with a pocketful of candy.
And what did most of us do if we saw a man on the way home?

I am seriously sick of a narrative that equates Trayvon Martin with... some kind of sweet 8-year-old. It's completely fucking disingenuous.
It doesn't matter. He could have been Jack the Fucking Ripper possessing the Rock's body, he was doing nothing wrong. And had as much right as Zimmerman to be on those streets. Zimmerman created a situation of threat.
I agree. After all, Zimmerman wasn't surprised in his own home, nor did he inadvertently stumble across a crime in progress.

It's worth remembering the different reasons the two had for being out that night. Martin was returning home from a trip to the store; Zimmerman was patrolling the streets with his gun, on the lookout for troublemakers.

One of the two had had a lot of time to think about what might happen during a confrontation, and what his various options might be. He had, after all, been specifically advised many months before by the Sanford police department's coordinator for neighborhood watch groups:
quote:
She then gave a PowerPoint presentation and distributed a handbook. As she always does, she emphasized what a neighborhood watch is — and what it is not.

In every presentation, “I go through what the rules and responsibilities are,” she said Thursday. The volunteers’ role, she said, is “being the eyes and ears” for the police, “not the vigilante.” Members of a neighborhood watch “are not supposed to confront anyone,” she said. “We get paid to get into harm’s way. You don’t do that. You just call them from the safety of your home or your vehicle.”

Using a gun in the neighborhood watch role would be out of the question, she said in an interview.
(NYTimes article)
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re American gun mythology:

The wonderful "To The Best Of Our Knowledge" radio show has an episode called "The Gun" this week. I'm listening to it right now.

Here's the blurb, from their site.

quote:
Guns are a part of our national mythology. Just consider the Western, Annie Oakley, Daniel Boone -- it's hard to deny the role guns had in shaping America.

But what if all those stories were exaggerated at best? What if the gun myth was created in the 19th century by gun manufacturers? In other words, what if guns aren’t what we stand for, but instead, are just another thing we were sold.

 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re American gun mythology:

The wonderful "To The Best Of Our Knowledge" radio show has an episode called "The Gun" this week. I'm listening to it right now.

Here's the blurb, from their site.

quote:
Guns are a part of our national mythology. Just consider the Western, Annie Oakley, Daniel Boone -- it's hard to deny the role guns had in shaping America.

But what if all those stories were exaggerated at best? What if the gun myth was created in the 19th century by gun manufacturers? In other words, what if guns aren’t what we stand for, but instead, are just another thing we were sold.
It is very well established that they were exaggerated. Dime novels, newspapers and theatrical performance presented a sensationalised, highly fictional account of American expansion. I would be interested to hear what role the manufacturers played.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
[clings to his digital collection of Have Gun, Will Travel]

I can't hear you. La la la la la.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To paraphrase Mr. Miyagi. The best way to avoid a confrontation which may lead to killing another human for no damn good reason, no be there.
Or Joshua, the computer, in "War Games":
quote:
Strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
And again... Approximately 20 dead inside Florida nightclub after mass shooting. Many more are injured.

Prayers for all involved.
[Votive]
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
There is at least one story on the local news every morning of someone getting shot the night before. This morning there were three -- in addition to the Florida incident. I am sure there are equal numbers of similar stories in every jurisdiction.

The news media would be doing the country a great service if, instead of repeating boring stories about Trump, Trump, Trump, they would broadcast a non-stop roundup of the latest gun violence incidents throughout the country. It just might wake some legislators up finally.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It's now 50. God DAMN America.

[ 12. June 2016, 15:04: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :
 
[Votive]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
50 and the media are saying the perpetrator is of Afghan descent, and the incident is being treated as terrorism.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Je suis Pulse.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Yeah.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Je suis Pulse.
[Overused]
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
quote:
“We’re dealing with something we never imagined and is unimaginable,” Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer (D) said during a news briefing Sunday.
Unimaginable? Really? After all the bodies, all the mourning, all the other times where This Exact Gorram Thing Happened before, we still can't imagine it happening again?

No, I guess not. At this point, we probably expect it.

Oh, and just to be clear:

quote:
An officer working at the club exchanged fire with the gunman, authorities said. It was then, according to police, that the incident developed into “a hostage situation.”
A good guy with a gun didn't stop the bad guy with a gun.

(ETA: Quotes are from the main WaPo story, which has a tendency to be updated, rearranged, and changed as things develop.)

[ 12. June 2016, 16:13: Message edited by: Ariston ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Obama will make a statement in about 20 minutes (17.30 English time).

The perpetrator had an "Arabic" name but seems to have been a US citizen ... are we talking radicalisation as much as gun crime? We'll have to see.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
50 and the media are saying the perpetrator is of Afghan descent, and the incident is being treated as terrorism.
If it gets labelled "terrorism" then it's not related to domestic policy, and so gun control is not part of the problem.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Fox news has already broadcasted, blaming Obama for the entire tragedy. And one of those adorable legislators in Texas has announced that it's all the victims' own fault, for being in a gay nightclub on a Saturday night.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If it gets labelled "terrorism" then it's not related to domestic policy, and so gun control is not part of the problem.
Precisely.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's now 50. God DAMN America.
Damning extreme gun culture, hatred to the point of violence*, whatever drives people to identify with shooters and violent groups, lack of mental health care, and the turbulence of gun regulations (regulate, dismantle, over and over) might be better.

*NPR mentioned that the shooter's father said he was strongly anti-gay.

[Votive]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Yeah, terrorism, my ass. A private citizen decided he didn't like what two other private citizens were doing, so he got a readily available weapon and started eliminating people he didn't like.

And while I understand the young man's father's need to affirm that " religion has nothing to do with it," given how quicky people wanted to decide Middle Eastern = Radical jihadist, the fact that that scum sucking Texas lawmaker used a Bible verse to celebrate the massacre means religion is involved. Saying anything further would be a Dead Horse,I suppose.

[ 12. June 2016, 16:58: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Kelly wrote:

quote:
the fact that that scum sucking Texas lawmaker used a Bible verse to celebrate the massacre means religion is involved
Could you provide a link? Not that I doubt you at all, I'm just curious to read about this, and google hasn't been very helpful.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Here's the link, just in case you didn't believe a politician could be so stupid.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
<bump>

Orlando. I'm glad I haven't had breakfast, because I would have vomited all over my laptop. Words fail.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Hate-mongers must be so confused. A guy kills 50 people at a gay club in the name of radical Islam ... who do they cheer for?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
His people are saying that the tweet was prescheduled ( how does that work? An app?) and he will delete it. Ok, fine.

Guess he had a reputation that made it easy to believe this was a shot. I believe it was a coincidence. but at the same time I wonder why he did't take the tweet down immediately, instead of just saying he'd get to it.

[ 12. June 2016, 17:10: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
<bump>

Orlando. I'm glad I haven't had breakfast, because I would have vomited all over my laptop. Words fail.
Same reaction. Right in the stomach. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
His people are saying that the tweet was prescheduled ( how does that work? An app?) and he will delete it. Ok, fine.

Guess he had a reputation that made it easy to believe this was a shot. I believe it was a coincidence. but at the same time I wonder why he did't take the tweet down immediately, instead of just saying he'd get to it.
It's kinda hard to imagine why he would send out that particular bible quote, if not as a response to a particular event. That one is almost always quoted to either warn that someone is going to be punished by God, or to celebrate the fact that someone has supposedly been punished by God. It's not really a generic, one-size-fits-all sorta line, like "God is love".

Oh, and thanks for the link Brenda.

[ 12. June 2016, 17:16: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Yeah, there goes n my benefit of the doubt. You're right, that is not exactly a typical inspirational quote.

And AFAIK it still hasn't been taken down. That doesn't really signal concern about a faux pas.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
And the one he followed up with emphasizes that God is the salvation of the *righteous*, and God will comfort them.

If he meant the first one as a commentary on being gay, then he probably didn't suddenly decided they were righteous.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And here are the Fox News hosts, blaming Obama. It's become self-parody.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
I don't want to go to the Fox site and look, but I'm curious... what are their grounds for saying it's Obama's fault?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, terrorism, my ass. A private citizen decided he didn't like what two other private citizens were doing, so he got a readily available weapon and started eliminating people he didn't like.
As with these situations there are all sorts of statements flying around.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
And it looks like a potential attack on today's Los Angeles Pride parade has been quashed. Police reportedly said that they don't know if there's a connection with Orlando.
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I don't want to go to the Fox site and look, but I'm curious... what are their grounds for saying it's Obama's fault?
1. Thanks to BC for sparing us the link to Faux.
2. Basically, Obama has taught us to not automatically suspect Muslims/immigrants/etc. Because of PC Run Amok, we're less vigilant...and so this happens. QED, Thanks Obummer!
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
Thanks.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
Interview with his ex-wife.

quote:
“He was not a stable person,” said the ex-wife, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she feared for her safety in the wake of the mass shooting. “He beat me. He would just come home and start beating me up because the laundry wasn’t finished or something like that.”
[...]
“He seemed like a normal human being,” she said, adding that he wasn’t very religious and worked out at the gym often. She said in the few months they were married he gave no signs of having fallen under the sway of radical Islam.

 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And Pat Robertson is always reliable. How the man call call himself a follower of Christ is a mystery to me. Any time someone wants to throw mud at the church, he's the one they throw.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I started a thread in All Saints to commemorate the dead at Pulse and pray for their souls and for the living -- the other wounded, and all the families and loved ones.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And Pat Robertson is always reliable. How the man call call himself a follower of Christ is a mystery to me. Any time someone wants to throw mud at the church, he's the one they throw.
You do know this is a satire site, right?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Interview with his ex-wife.

quote:
“He was not a stable person,” said the ex-wife, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she feared for her safety in the wake of the mass shooting. “He beat me. He would just come home and start beating me up because the laundry wasn’t finished or something like that.”
[...]
“He seemed like a normal human being,” she said, adding that he wasn’t very religious and worked out at the gym often. She said in the few months they were married he gave no signs of having fallen under the sway of radical Islam.
How can his ex-wife be anonymous? How many ex-wives does he have?
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Hate-mongers must be so confused. A guy kills 50 people at a gay club in the name of radical Islam ... who do they cheer for?
The guns.

They will and already are focusing on the guns.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
How can his ex-wife be anonymous? How many ex-wives does he have?
She might have changed her last name (either remarrying or going back to her maiden name) and moved to a new location where she (understandably) wouldn't want to be known as his ex-wife. She may even have changed name/location after the divorce to get away from her abuser.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
How can his ex-wife be anonymous? How many ex-wives does he have?
She might have changed her last name (either remarrying or going back to her maiden name) and moved to a new location where she (understandably) wouldn't want to be known as his ex-wife. She may even have changed name/location after the divorce to get away from her abuser.
Fair enough.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And Pat Robertson is always reliable. How the man call call himself a follower of Christ is a mystery to me. Any time someone wants to throw mud at the church, he's the one they throw.
You do know this is a satire site, right?
Oh dear, is it really? Tch. Although that he is the object of such satire says something too.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I've just read somewhere that Trump has said Obama should resign because he omitted to use the term 'radical Islam' in his speech.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, terrorism, my ass. A private citizen decided he didn't like what two other private citizens were doing, so he got a readily available weapon and started eliminating people he didn't like.
Without wishing to put your posterior under too much pressure, how does that differ from terrorism? It seems to me as though this is exactly the same as the lone shooter who attacks an abortion clinic.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, terrorism, my ass. A private citizen decided he didn't like what two other private citizens were doing, so he got a readily available weapon and started eliminating people he didn't like.
Without wishing to put your posterior under too much pressure, how does that differ from terrorism? It seems to me as though this is exactly the same as the lone shooter who attacks an abortion clinic.
I guess it depends how you define terrorism. I usually use the term to mean "the use of violence by non-governmental actors to achieve a political end." As such, the Pulse shooting would qualify, if the guy was trying to somehow roll back gay- rights in the USA.

But if he was just trying to express a personal animosity toward gays, then I might not apply the word.

Some might also factor in whether or not the shooter was acting alone, or as part of an organized group, but I don't see that as relevant, if a political motive has already been established.

And yes, I would call the anti-abortion shooters terrorists, even though I suppose their immediate goal is not to change the law, but to prevent people from performing or having abortions.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I've just read somewhere that Trump has said Obama should resign because he omitted to use the term 'radical Islam' in his speech.
Of course, Christian homophobes will want to blame this on Islam, not homophobia, thus letting themselves off the hook. Let's not let them get away with it. Let's keep reminding the world that that Christians kill queer folk too, and in some countries, are happy to do it legally.

<pedant>
And the reason that Obama does not use the words "radical" Islam is because he knows that the word "radical" doesn't just mean extreme. It comes from the word "radix", meaning root or source. If "radical" Islam is violent, that means the root of Islam is violence. He won't say that because it's not true, even though some people will say it is because he's secretly a gay Muslim.
</pedant>
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I guess it depends how you define terrorism. I usually use the term to mean "the use of violence by non-governmental actors to achieve a political end." As such, the Pulse shooting would qualify, if the guy was trying to somehow roll back gay- rights in the USA.

But if he was just trying to express a personal animosity toward gays, then I might not apply the word. ...
But he didn't kill the two guys in the mall at the time he saw them kissing; he premeditated and planned and murdered a whole bunch of other people. Politics includes a hell of a lot more than just legislating, and I'd lay dollars to doughnuts he never read {I}Obergefell[/I]. Humans are political animals, 24/7. How can killing a group of people and terrorizing millions of others not be political?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
And I would say that by its rhetoric, the anti-LGBTQ faction create guys like this do do their dirty work for them. They are pursuing their political ends by radicalizing downmarket homophobes to kill. It may not have been conscious terrorism by the shooter, but it is the anti-LGBTQ faction as a whole that is acting politically.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
...... It may not have been conscious terrorism by the shooter, but it is the anti-LGBTQ faction as a whole that is acting politically.
FWIW,

This NYTimes twitter essay by by their ISIS expert writer pretty much shows that the Orlando massacre was conscious terrorism but that terrorism in the name of ISIS requires only certain words be said.

i.e. Lone Wolf types affected by anti-LGBT or anti-(something else Western) are now part of ISIS' terrorism plans.

The guns are the method of course. But the hate is home grown and then used by ISIS.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Hate-mongers must be so confused. A guy kills 50 people at a gay club in the name of radical Islam ... who do they cheer for?
That's exactly what D. and I were saying about it; they won't know which way to turn.

I suppose as long as they're hating somebody they'll be happy ... [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
He won't say that because it's not true, even though some people will say it is because he's secretly a gay Muslim.
</pedant>
Just read that. ROTFL. Especially because, per the comments, it's originally from a satire site! 2 people posting sanely, but the others...

And torturing a Secret Service agent, by making him listen to Diana Ross?! I wonder if the original satirist watched the Cold War era comedy film "One, Two, Three"? A young Russian is made to listen to "Yellow Polka-Dot Bikini".
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I've just read somewhere that Trump has said Obama should resign because he omitted to use the term 'radical Islam' in his speech.
Of course, Christian homophobes will want to blame this on Islam, not homophobia, thus letting themselves off the hook. Let's not let them get away with it. Let's keep reminding the world that that Christians kill queer folk too, and in some countries, are happy to do it legally.

<pedant>
And the reason that Obama does not use the words "radical" Islam is because he knows that the word "radical" doesn't just mean extreme. It comes from the word "radix", meaning root or source. If "radical" Islam is violent, that means the root of Islam is violence. He won't say that because it's not true, even though some people will say it is because he's secretly a gay Muslim.
</pedant>
I don't think that's quite right; he's certainly not averse to the term "radicalization", which he used twice in this address.

He wants to avoid associating the terrorists with Islam because it would legitimate their own position; as he says, "They are not religious leaders; they are terrorists."
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And Pat Robertson is always reliable. How the man call call himself a follower of Christ is a mystery to me. Any time someone wants to throw mud at the church, he's the one they throw.
You do know this is a satire site, right?
Even some legit news sources mistakenly picked up that story--presumably because it's so like many other things Robertson really said, in the past.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Hate-mongers must be so confused. A guy kills 50 people at a gay club in the name of radical Islam ... who do they cheer for?
The guns.

They will and already are focusing on the guns.
I belong to a San Francisco History Facebook group. This morning a guy posted several photos of notable Pride parades, and we all thanked him and sort of collected for a while to have a little cry and admire the pics, while people shared updates on the Orlando situation. Then some Arizona expat came in."This is exactly why I never leave the house unarmed. "

I didn't respond-- didn't trust myself-- but I looked long and hard at his profile pic, so I could walk the other way if I saw him coming.

[ 13. June 2016, 03:09: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Hate-mongers must be so confused. A guy kills 50 people at a gay club in the name of radical Islam ... who do they cheer for?
Turns out they're not confused at all.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
And I'm sure that someone, somewhere, is saying, "oh, if only they'd all had guns!"

ETA: This is in response to Kelly.

[ 13. June 2016, 04:53: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
"Orlando Is My City. And I’m Sick Of This Sh*t" (HuffPost).

Good blog post re gun control--even a total ban. And, of course, a couple of commenters did say it would've been different if the club attendees had guns.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
Hundreds of people all with guns, together, in bars getting drunk, or stoned or both and interacting with their hormones in a place designed to elicit sensual responses.

What could go wrong?
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
Justin Welby can fuck off. I don't want to hear a damn word from those who've never stood up for LGBTQ people in the past. Nothing. You don't get kudos for any version of "at least WE don't hate you enough to kill you." Conservative Christians this is not your moment. Replace your disrespectful silence at our oppression with respectful silence at our mourning.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Hundreds of people all with guns, together, in bars getting drunk, or stoned or both and interacting with their hormones in a place designed to elicit sensual responses.

What could go wrong?
They could hold hands with someone of the wrong gender.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Hundreds of people all with guns...
[i]All[i] with guns? Uh, no. Proliferation of guns is a huge problem here, but could you try to absorb the notion that we don't all carry guns?
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Hundreds of people all with guns...
All with guns? Uh, no. Proliferation of guns is a huge problem here, but could you try to absorb the notion that we don't all carry guns?
I think he was snarking about the wisdom that people drinking and dancing in a bar would have been safer if they had been armed.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Turns out they're not confused at all.
The bloke in that article strikes me as that most dangerous combination - a bigot crossed with an idiot.

[Mad]
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
I still think Chris Rock was onto something. In a country where gun ownership is pretty damn close to being a religion enshrined in law, why not punitively tax bullets?

I think $5,000 per shot was the proposed level.

That said, I can imagine there'd still be some who'd starve their families just to be able to fire their weapons at someone else, even if they're not part of any kind of well regulated militia.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The other suggestion, which I kind of like, is to gin up a public push for all gay people to buy guns. And black people too, of course. Lots of ads with big black men holding heavy assault weaponry, and cross-dressers locking and loading. Gun control legislation would pass so quickly your head would spin. Because of course the second amendment is really only supposed to apply to white straight men.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Americans? Here's the White House petition to ban AR-15s.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The other suggestion, which I kind of like, is to gin up a public push for all gay people to buy guns. And black people too, of course. Lots of ads with big black men holding heavy assault weaponry, and cross-dressers locking and loading. Gun control legislation would pass so quickly your head would spin. Because of course the second amendment is really only supposed to apply to white straight men.
I think you underestimate the fetish/eroticism behind the "People should be able to own any big assed gun they can afford" movement. They don't care who as long as they can (in theory).

Its aspirational spending actually, not all that different mentally to these people then when they choose to get a venti at Starbucks over a cup of coffee at a local diner (and yes, , the assumption that gun acquirers are all good old boy types is false).
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
I am sick and tired of this thread. I have had enough of reading every single story, every single link, about every new death, every new massacre. Every one is unique and different, and yet, after all this time, they blend together. Every time, we talk, we discuss, we try to explain to one another, those of us over here try to please just reban stupid assault weapons its a startpleaseohplease, and then, it happens again.

I can't close it. I don't want to close it. I want it to sink to the bottom of Hell and be culled, consigned to some dark reach of Oblivion where not even our search function can find it.

Just put the guns down and go home. Please. It's not worth it.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
The Black Panthers were among a number of Black people who were armed. It didn't always end well.

I've been watching all the erstwhile homophobes like Huckabee take a break to condemn the killings while not mentioning that they were killed because they were LBGT. I don't know if Trump mentioned they were mostly Latino as well in his attempt to smear Muslims.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The other suggestion, which I kind of like, is to gin up a public push for all gay people to buy guns. And black people too, of course. Lots of ads with big black men holding heavy assault weaponry, and cross-dressers locking and loading. Gun control legislation would pass so quickly your head would spin. Because of course the second amendment is really only supposed to apply to white straight men.
Don't worry, we wouldn't use them or anything. Except for protection.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The other suggestion, which I kind of like, is to gin up a public push for all gay people to buy guns. And black people too, of course. Lots of ads with big black men holding heavy assault weaponry, and cross-dressers locking and loading. Gun control legislation would pass so quickly your head would spin. Because of course the second amendment is really only supposed to apply to white straight men.
Don't worry, we wouldn't use them or anything. Except for protection.
What? Are you saying black people need to protect themselves? Against who, white people? REVERSE RACISM! REVERSE RACISM!
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And I'm sure that someone, somewhere, is saying, "oh, if only they'd all had guns!"

ETA: This is in response to Kelly.
Yep. An erstwhile poster on these very boards posted a meme on that Bookface thing to that very effect. She got pretty sort shrift from most people.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Interesting movement in Congress:

"Democrats Launch Filibuster-Style Blockade On Guns" (HuffPost). Ever see "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington"? That's a filibuster. You keep talking, until the other side gives in.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Interesting movement in Congress:

"Democrats Launch Filibuster-Style Blockade On Guns" (HuffPost). Ever see "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington"? That's a filibuster. You keep talking, until the other side gives in.
Don't know how much good it will do, but many of us Americans, heartbroken by a long, long season of death, are cheered by his efforts.

Oh, and here's another take on filibusters: by the grandfathers.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
"How Alexander Hamilton solved America's gun problem — 228 years ago" (The Week). Author looks into the writings of Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, and explores the possibility of controlling guns by mandating that owners join a state militia! (Hoping that people would keep an eye on each other.) Long, but interesting, IMHO.

Of course, Hamilton died in a gun(?) duel with Aaron Burr; but Wikipedia suggests that Burr asked for the duel.

[ 16. June 2016, 08:21: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
And now we have a case. Nobody dead, though victim critical.

MP shot
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
She's died now. I don't know what to make of this situation. [Votive]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
David Cameron looked absolutely genuine in his speech.
One of the witnesses thought it was a homemade gun.
And they are being very careful about the early reports of what the man said.
Shocking.
And one of the good ones.
And her children - it doesn't bear thinking of.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
There was an interesting piece on radio 4, saying the vast majority of this specific type of attacks are carried out by fixated mentally ill individuals.

The metropolitan police apparently have a fixated threat assessment unit jointly with the health service to manage this kind of risk.

He was talking about increasing the safety of backbench mps (the lower profile mps who don't have protection details) by increasing their awareness of identifying risky individuals and sourcing help - rather than simply seeing them as something they must just put up with.

He said there have usually been multiple problematic contatcs between the assailant and the target beforehand. E.g. The last mp who was stabbed at his constituency surgery a couple of years ago, (fortunately he survived), had been visited by his assailant at the surgery on over a hundred previous occasions.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/16/jo-cox-mp-everything-we-know-so-far-about-thomas-mair/
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
That is very odd. Apart from the usual quote about being a quiet loner who kept himself to himself, which doesn't match the story of his activities, there doesn't seem to be anything to trigger what he did.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
He may have made a good recovery from serious illness, then subsequently relapsed - or the mental illness could have nothing to do with it.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Found a thing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixated_Threat_Assessment_Centre

Seems like they do a decent job, but no system is perfect.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Audio of today's White House conference call on assault rifles, from the White House site:

Got an invitation to this for signing an petition. I didn't participate and I haven't listened to this, yet, but thought it might be of interest.

quote:
Special call on civilian ownership of the AR-15 with Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement.

On the call, we'll talk about the need to renew the assault weapons ban and the different gun safety measures the Senate is set to vote on in the coming week.

 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
In late breaking news, the Senate has rejected all gun control proposals currently before it.

What is it that the French say about plus ça change . . . ? [Help]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Grrrrr.

On a practical basis, I do have questions about the approaches based on the no-fly list and the terror watch list. AIUI, the no-fly list only lists names, with no other info, so the list can be wildly inaccurate. Even Sen. Ted Kennedy was pulled aside. So anyone whose name matched could be refused gun purchase.

And if someone on the terror watch list tries to legally buy a gun and is refused, won't that warn them that they're on the list?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And if someone on the terror watch list tries to legally buy a gun and is refused, won't that warn them that they're on the list?
Not if they've already been interviewed by the FBI three times.
 
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :
 
You're only a known terrorist.

Never mind, in the USA it's still your God-given constitutional right to legally buy and carry a [semi-]automatic rifle, and [it follows] to shoot anyone you feel like [in self-defense of of course].

No wonder the rest of world thinks it's a madhouse. (My wife is reluctant to enter the country even as a tourist, and she's as WASP as anyone.)

[ 21. June 2016, 09:54: Message edited by: Tukai ]
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Madhouse? You ain't seen nothin' yet! The news this morning is that a Florida congressional candidate is raffling off an AK-15, claiming that it's necessary for the defense of our country. Against what, I'd like to know -- the likes of him? [Mad]
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Madhouse? You ain't seen nothin' yet! The news this morning is that a Florida congressional candidate is raffling off an AK-15, claiming that it's necessary for the defense of our country. Against what, I'd like to know -- the likes of him? [Mad]
A Colt Armalite rifle chambering WARPAC 7.62mm short? Never heard of a STANAG Kalashnikov mag...
[Waterworks]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
"U.S. House Democrats hold 'sit-in' demanding gun control vote" (Yahoo), and some senators have joined. Don't know the current status. But good for them!
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
According to the Today programme on BBC R4, they are bringing in sleeping bags and other useful items. And the Rep Speaker turning the cameras off presumably is not very useful in the days of smartphones. He says it's just a publicity stunt.

[ 23. June 2016, 07:33: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
... And the Rep Speaker turning the cameras off presumably is not very useful in the days of smartphones. He says it's just a publicity stunt.
[Roll Eyes]

Yeah, John Lewis is notorious for his "publicity stunts". Like getting whacked on the head in Selma.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Sounds like there is another incident in Germany this time

[Votive]
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
The Rep Speaker . . . says it's just a publicity stunt.
Yeah, but safer (in his mind, at least, I guess) than the publicity that would ensue if a vote actually did take place. "Congressman Dipshit: the one who voted for known terrorists being allowed to buy guns unchecked. Do we really want to re-elect him?"
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
According to the Today programme on BBC R4, they are bringing in sleeping bags and other useful items. And the Rep Speaker turning the cameras off presumably is not very useful in the days of smartphones. He says it's just a publicity stunt.
Congress is at least 25% theatre. It's why there's CSpan.

I remember some time ago some Republican senator expounding on the importance of some bill, and pointing and calling out Democratic senators by name. "And you, Senator Blahblah, will you vote to protect our children? How about you, Senator Soandso?"

Then the cameras pulled back and the chamber was empty. They threw a fit over that and now there are strict guidelines over what the cameras can and cannot do. Hence Ryan switching them off.

I understand that Ryan is now threatening to have the protestors arrested. I wonder how you can arrest somebody who's in the room in which he does his job? How's that work?

[ 23. June 2016, 15:23: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
... And the Rep Speaker turning the cameras off presumably is not very useful in the days of smartphones. He says it's just a publicity stunt.
[Roll Eyes]

Yeah, John Lewis is notorious for his "publicity stunts". Like getting whacked on the head in Selma.
This.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
The Rep Speaker . . . says it's just a publicity stunt.
Yeah, but safer (in his mind, at least, I guess) than the publicity that would ensue if a vote actually did take place. "Congressman Dipshit: the one who voted for known terrorists being allowed to buy guns unchecked. Do we really want to re-elect him?"
That didn't seem to bother the other house where there are several of whom it could be said "Senator Dipshit: the one who voted for known terrorists being allowed to buy guns unchecked. Do we really want to re-elect him?"
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I wonder how you can arrest somebody who's in the room in which he does his job? How's that work?
Any number of normal people are arrested in the rooms in which they do their jobs. Some of them are arrested in the room in which they do their jobs for a crime that they committed in that very room. So I don't see why this, in particular, presents any special difficulty.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Congress is at least 25% theatre. It's why there's CSpan.
CSpan was instituted as a visual antidote to insomnia.
Parliament might be generally as fucked as Congress, but it is typically more enjoyable to watch.
Not that this is a very high bar...
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I wonder how you can arrest somebody who's in the room in which he does his job? How's that work?
Any number of normal people are arrested in the rooms in which they do their jobs. Some of them are arrested in the room in which they do their jobs for a crime that they committed in that very room. So I don't see why this, in particular, presents any special difficulty.
And what crime have they committed in that room? Sitting on the floor?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Pulling this up to rant. Three horrific shootings here in the US. In fact, so much terror and death that the drive-by shooting of a 4 year old boy in our community didn't even make the news. The thread title says it all.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Only in America. I wonder if Jesus would dine here.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
The sub-headline says it all:
quote:
she makes staff take a concealed weapon training class before letting them lose [sic]

 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re cops and African American men:

This mistake didn't get to the shooting point; but it was bad enough, and could've been so much worse.

Cousin of Slain Baton Rouge Cop Was Arrested for the Massacre. Damarcus Alexander went into a Walmart to change clothes. When he came out, police locked him up and allegedly denied him diabetes medicine until he almost slipped into a coma. (The Daily Beast)
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Oh, no, no, no no.

One of the deceased was the nephew of a cherished friend, one of the best teachers I have ever worked with.

The kid was just going to a party. God damn it.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
{{{{{{{Kelly and all}}}}}}} [Votive]

Damn guns and gun culture.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Oh, Kelly, [Votive] [Votive] [Votive]
 
Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :
 
Kelly [Votive]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
[Votive]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Bleak, but life affirming humour.

According to my Twitter feed a teacher asked her class, during safety procedures, what they should do if she was shot.

One of her charges put their hand up. She indicated for him to speak.

"Avenge you".
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I... am really not sure what I would say in that situation. There's what I should say, and then there is what would probably come out of my mouth.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Me too.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
"Of course they start shooting."

Never mind the famous dad, this was a thirteen year old girl.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
News, earlier today, said 3 people were shot at a high school here in SF. Police were seeking a suspect. That's all I've heard. Not quite up to looking up a detailed story.

[Votive]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Kelly--

Yes, I heard about that poor 13-year-old girl who was killed.
[Frown] [Votive]
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
I might have tried a bucket of cold water, but a gun? I can't quite see how this relates to any right to self defence or protection from tyranny.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
The violence at Ohio State Univ. today. (AIUI from the news: purposely running a car into people, then stabbed a bunch of people. Latest report says 11 people went to the hospital, one of whom was seriously injured. Attacker killed by police. He was reportedly a Somali refugee, which will play into many people's fears.)
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
When will America give up the Rambo/Lethal Weapon fantasy? More teachers being allowed guns.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Makes me think of a nasty/subversive childhood song (Wikipedia):
quote:


Typical lines are[3]

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the burning of the school
We have tortured all the teachers - we have broken all the rules
We ramrocked the offices and hung the principal
March on, third grade, march on!

Glory, glory, hallelujah
My teacher hit me with a ruler
I hid behind her door with a loaded .44
And the teacher don't teach no more!
The "glory" refrain is closed to the words I learned, but the verse is different in spots.

The article notes that the band Washboard Jungle "stopped performing the song after the Columbine massacre, when it no longer seemed funny".
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
I hid behind her door with a loaded .44
And the teacher don't teach no more!
Yikes! Times have changed since I was a kid (no more dinosaurs, electric light bulbs, horseless carriages, etc.)

We sang:
quote:
Glory, glory, hallelujah
My teacher hit me with a ruler
I socked her on the beanie
With a rotten tangerine-y
Our gang goes marching on!

 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
This 73 year old man could be me in a few years. Shot in his own driveway for walking toward police with his hands in his pockets. I imagine he couldn't quite understand what they were yelling at him so he walked closer to hear better. Of course he had his hands in his pockets, it's been freezing lately even in California. His family says he had been "showing signs of early dementia." Um hum, my family's been saying that about me since I was eight.

I blame the police, but mostly I blame the neighbor who called 911 and said the man was "brandishing a weapon." Total lie.
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
This 73 year old man could be me in a few years. Shot in his own driveway for walking toward police with his hands in his pockets. I imagine he couldn't quite understand what they were yelling at him so he walked closer to hear better. Of course he had his hands in his pockets, it's been freezing lately even in California. His family says he had been "showing signs of early dementia." Um hum, my family's been saying that about me since I was eight.

I blame the police, but mostly I blame the neighbor who called 911 and said the man was "brandishing a weapon." Total lie.
In Canada too. In this case there has been a complete news blackout, the killer can't be identified, and the man's family has been told they might wait two years for an inquiry to be completed. He had upset someone by his appearance, and that was enough for the police to shoot and kill him without even leaving their car.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
He had upset someone by his appearance, and that was enough for the police to shoot and kill him without even leaving their car.
quote:
He said the man was also wearing heavy winter boots. “That really caught my eye, you know,” he said.
Yep. It's going to be me someday. If odd fashion choices warrant a police call, I expect the helicopters are circling my house right now.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
When will America give up the Rambo/Lethal Weapon fantasy?
When Yellowstone goes up I expect. No need of fantasyland then, it will be for real.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Liberty University spends a fortune to build a gun range, because college kids need to carry guns.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
I appreciate how crappily etiquetted this is, but I have no time to read through this huge thread for myself to find a killer refutation of the argument of a friend of mine that people should be allowed to carry firearms. He says people would murder one another anyway, and that cars are more dangerous than guns. Seriously.

Would anyone here be kind enough to summarise pithily but devastatingly why he's being such a clot?

Many thanks (and HNY to you all).

[ 02. January 2017, 10:35: Message edited by: Yorick ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Hostly furry hat very firmly on

Yorick. This is not a fucking homework thread. Fuck the fuck off and do your own fucking leg work. Or you could just stab your 'friend' in the face with a carburettor and tell them they were right all along.

Hostly furry hat off

DT
HH
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Acknowledged. Sorry for the bother.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
They're a FUCKIN' CLOT !!

Pithy and devastating enough for you?
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Actually, no. Although undeniably pithy your argument fails to devastate much.

But you're going to get me into awful trouble here because we shouldn't be discussing this on this, er, discussion forum, because it's not a fucking homework thread and I must fuck the fuck off and do my own fucking leg work or stab my friend in the face.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Purgatory is <--- that way. You may want to lay out a thesis first to prevent the Purg hosts from closing what is obviously a homework thread.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
He says people would murder one another anyway
Well the science says he's fucking wrong.

People run the same argument that people would commit suicide anyway, and would just find another method.

It's not true. The difference between guns and other means of death is that guns enable you to fulfil your murderous or suicidal impulse quickly.

Other tools give time for that impulse to fade. And so the net reduction in deaths is due to the proportion of people who come to their senses in the meantime and ask "what the fuck was I thinking?"
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Ahem. No, orfeo, Purgatory is over there <-------

But wait, there's no need to decamp there on my account, since I obeyed the firmly behatted command to fuck off and Googled some excellent material elsewhere. It was easy!

So the unpleasant risk of some pesky arousal of the discussion has been neatly Hosted away AND light is possibly cast on the great mystery of Where the Fuck all the Interesting Old Shipmates have Gone and why the Number of Visitors thingy only ever says '37' nowadays instead of '143'. Everyone's a winner!

I'm off to try that Google website again, to see where I can find one of those new 'but plug' things for our bathroom sink that I gather must be very good.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Hostly furry hat on

Yorick. You know full well that if you want to discuss/dispute a Hostly ruling, that Styx is the place to do it. Just as you full well know that if you want a serious discussion on a discussion board, Purgatory (or Dead Horses, which the topic of guns is not) is the place to do it.

Your thinly-veiled contempt for this site, which you seem so desperate to be a part of, has earned you your first Admin referral of the year. Well done.

Hostly furry hat off

DT
HH
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Alas. I do not hold this site in contempt (though I suppose I doubt it always gets things right, which is fair enough I hope). On the contrary, I admire the wit and wisdom of those who participate here. Or used to, anyway.

Which is why I came here looking for some intelligent help with my 'homework', obviously.

Sorry for being the cause of trouble, though, and peaceful vibes to you all. Ta ta.
 
Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :
 
Fort Lauderdale...
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
How long, O Lord, how long?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
He was allowed to take a gun on a plane? [Eek!]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The gun was in his checked luggage in the hold, so not accessible to him during the flight. Which must cause no end of headaches for security checking luggage for explosives, the gunpowder in the ammunition and residuals on the gun should trigger the alarms and be indistinguishable from a bomb without extra examination.
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The gun was in his checked luggage in the hold, so not accessible to him during the flight. Which must cause no end of headaches for security checking luggage for explosives, the gunpowder in the ammunition and residuals on the gun should trigger the alarms and be indistinguishable from a bomb without extra examination.
"He checked in an unloaded gun and ammunition with his luggage, and loaded the semi-automatic gun in the toilet after landing and collecting his bag. He surrendered to police when he ran out of ammunition." (from the BBC news report)

So that was OK then. He followed all the rules for transporting his (presumably) legally-held weapon. The rules work. He did nothing illegal until he killed people. Nothing to see here, move along. [/sarcasm]
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Legal gun owners do have a slight tendency to be the most dangerous, certainly true in the U.K.

"These guns are mine . The law is satisfied that I am the legitimate owner of them Therefore I can, if wish, legitimately fantasise about shooting people".
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
From a CNN article on this story:
quote:
Florida law prohibits guns inside terminals unless they are still in their case, but there is a bill before the state legislature to allow guns in public places like airports.
Is there no end to the stupidity of our species?
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
From a CNN article on this story:
quote:
Florida law prohibits guns inside terminals unless they are still in their case, but there is a bill before the state legislature to allow guns in public places like airports.
Is there no end to the stupidity of our species?
Welcome to Arizona.
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
From a CNN article on this story:
quote:
Florida law prohibits guns inside terminals unless they are still in their case, but there is a bill before the state legislature to allow guns in public places like airports.
Is there no end to the stupidity of our species?
Welcome to Arizona.
[Roll Eyes]
Maybe The Japanese can teach us all something.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
--Interesting article, Zappa. I especially like the idea of rolling an out-of-control person up in a futon. I'm surprised that the Japanese police are expected to earn a black belt. That's a pretty high standard.

I don't think most of Japan's approach, per the article, would work in the US, due to the vast cultural differences and all the things Americans have mentioned on this thread. I'm glad Japan has something that works for them. I do question, though, the statement that people expect things to be peaceful, so they are.


--Re the shooter who took his gun along in his packed luggage:

The news yesterday showed a video of how that's legally possible. the gun owner has to put the unloaded gun in a hard case--plastic, wood, metal--that locks. I don't remember if ammo can be in the case, or in the luggage that carries it. I was thinking that one way to make things a *little* safer would be ban bringing ammo--whether in the case, the luggage, or on the gun owner's person. Can a search dog smell gun powder?

Air marshals should be able to have unloaded guns on/with them, with ammo nearby. Possibly also other law enforcement folks--when transporting a dangerous prisoner, for instance.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I disagree cultures can change and so can attitudes.

"There are also mental health and drugs tests. Your criminal record is checked and police look for links to extremist groups. Then they check your relatives too - and even your work colleagues. And as well as having the power to deny gun licences, police also have sweeping powers to search and seize weapons.

That's not all. Handguns are banned outright. Only shotguns and air rifles are allowed.

The law restricts the number of gun shops. In most of Japan's 40 or so prefectures there can be no more than three, and you can only buy fresh cartridges by returning the spent cartridges you bought on your last visit."

Excellent. If I lived in the USA I'd be spreading this message far and wide.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
If I lived in the USA I'd be spreading this message far and wide.
Many Americans try, but the National Rifle Association is enormous and powerful.

Among the many speaking out about sensible gun solutions is a former Congresswoman from Arizona, Gabby Giffords, who was almost killed by a deranged gunman six years ago today. Six other peope were killed, and others injured. She and her astronaut husband, Mark Kelly, are strong advocates of sensible legislation on this issue.

[ 08. January 2017, 12:25: Message edited by: Pigwidgeon ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
--Interesting article, Zappa. I especially like the idea of rolling an out-of-control person up in a futon.
Of course that's more of an option when you can be 99.9% sure he doesn't have a gun.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The gun was in his checked luggage in the hold, so not accessible to him during the flight. Which must cause no end of headaches for security checking luggage for explosives, the gunpowder in the ammunition and residuals on the gun should trigger the alarms and be indistinguishable from a bomb without extra examination.
"He checked in an unloaded gun and ammunition with his luggage, and loaded the semi-automatic gun in the toilet after landing and collecting his bag. He surrendered to police when he ran out of ammunition." (from the BBC news report)

So that was OK then. He followed all the rules for transporting his (presumably) legally-held weapon. The rules work. He did nothing illegal until he killed people. Nothing to see here, move along. [/sarcasm]
[cont.sarcasm] It's also okay for him to have a gun even though he clearly has schizophrenia, because he hasn't had enough care from a psychiatrist to be entered into the "don't sell guns to him" list. Only the mentally ill who are stabilized on medication and under the care of a regular psychiatrist and probably not at all dangerous would be on that list. [/sarcasm]
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
...Welcome to Arizona.
[Roll Eyes]
From the linked article:


quote:
"There is never anything to fear from peaceful, responsible gun owners."
Because peaceful, responsible people never lose their temper and do something irresponsible. I'm so FUCKING sick of this stupid line of bullshit. Sure, all the children in Lake Wobegon are above average, but when it comes to guns, this fallacy kills.

My burg has been hit by several snowfalls, and apparently there were scuffles at some local fire halls over free salt. Salt. Just salt. It really doesn't take much to send ordinary people around the bend. And I'm also sick of the cliché about an armed society being a polite society. An armed society is a society where assholes can be armed.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
...Welcome to Arizona.
[Roll Eyes]
From the linked article:


quote:
"There is never anything to fear from peaceful, responsible gun owners."
Because peaceful, responsible people never lose their temper and do something irresponsible. I'm so FUCKING sick of this stupid line of bullshit. Sure, all the children in Lake Wobegon are above average, but when it comes to guns, this fallacy kills.
Agree strongly. Every gun owner is peaceful and responsible and law-abiding right up until the second they pull the trigger. How can I tell, before that point, which ones will STAY peaceful and responsible and law-abiding until I leave the Starbucks? Every gun-owner is Schrödinger's Gun Owner. You don't know if they're good or evil until you open the box -- that is, until they open fire. Even if I make it out of the Starbucks without any shooting taking place, the gunslinger then might go to the Piggly Wiggly and start shooting there.

The only RESPONSIBLE gun owner is the one who leaves his gun at home or at the shooting range, locked. Exception made for hunting but even there you're back in Schrödinger territory.
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Legal gun owners do have a slight tendency to be the most dangerous, certainly true in the U.K.
This doesn't seem to be true in NZ where few of the gun crimes are committed by licensed gun owners. More are committed by people who have them illegally.

Personally I hate firearms and have no reason to want to own any, but a friend of mine D does own at least one (a hunting rifle - hand guns are illegal) and when he needed to renew his license he asked if I would be willing to be interviewed by the police officer who was vetting him, as we have known each other for over 25 years and he doesn't have a long-term partner. The interview, a small part of the vetting process, lasted over a couple of hours at D's house, but without his presence. I was surprised at the depth of questioning, and felt quite wrung out at the end.

It was obvious from some of the questions the cop had also talked to other people about D, including other hunters and the local head of the Police Armed Offenders' Squad, whom D knows personally.

At the end of the interview I told the cop I would rather no one owned firearms at all, but after knowing D for so long I understood better why he chose to and had never felt threatened by him having them.

I think the NZ system is far from perfect, and we still have too many firearms crimes and accidents.

Huia
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
You don't know if they're good or evil until you open the box
It is beyond a binary issue like good or evil. Almost everyone will have witnessed, or participated in, an unintentional confrontation where a fight or argument resulted. It isn't only the bad person who shoots people.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It is much more binary at the moment when a confrontation escalates. When an argument reaches the point where a punch is thrown, is not the first person to strike out in the wrong? When the fight escalates to a gun being drawn and fired, is not the person who responded to a fist fight with a lethal weapon in the wrong? A good person can, of course, do a bad thing, and that bad act doesn't suddenly make that person bad in general - but, in the specific moment the bad choice was made that was bad.

Ready access to a gun makes it easier for someone who makes a bad choice to make that even worse.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I was thinking that one way to make things a *little* safer would be ban bringing ammo--whether in the case, the luggage, or on the gun owner's person. Can a search dog smell gun powder?
A gun without ammo is pretty useless. So, would such a proposal not be effectively banning people from transporting guns in their luggage? In which case, why not just ban guns from luggage?

Dogs (and machines) can detect trace levels of explosives, and gun powder is just another explosive. I would, therefore, expect that they should easily be able to detect ammunition, and quite possibly gunpowder residue on a gun itself. One of the accounts I read said that this man had declared that he had a gun and ammo in his luggage, which would make sense if that was going to set off the explosives sensing equipment. Presumably it was inspected seperately because it couldn't just go through the normal channels without setting off alarms (I do similar when taking my scientific equipment on a plane - if the staff looking at the x-rays know in advance that they're going to see a set of metal cylinders with wires attached they tend to be less concerned, and I then open the case and get everything examined by hand).
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
One of the accounts I read said that this man had declared that he had a gun and ammo in his luggage, which would make sense if that was going to set off the explosives sensing equipment.
It's legally required to fly with a firearm in the US - the firearm must be declared, and the bag (a locked, hard-sided container) must be inspected by the TSA in the presence of the owner, and then locked with a non-TSA lock (you can buy luggage locks here that the TSA can open with a master key - can't use those for firearms.) The bag is then sealed until the owner retrieves it at their final destination.

Ammunition must be carried in a container designed for that purpose, and not loaded in the firearm, though both the firearm and the ammunition can be in the same luggage.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
One of the accounts I read said that this man had declared that he had a gun and ammo in his luggage, which would make sense if that was going to set off the explosives sensing equipment.
It's legally required to fly with a firearm in the US - the firearm must be declared, and the bag (a locked, hard-sided container) must be inspected by the TSA in the presence of the owner, and then locked with a non-TSA lock (you can buy luggage locks here that the TSA can open with a master key - can't use those for firearms.) The bag is then sealed until the owner retrieves it at their final destination.

Ammunition must be carried in a container designed for that purpose, and not loaded in the firearm, though both the firearm and the ammunition can be in the same luggage.
Well, this latest incident has demonstrated the flaws in that set of rules very nicely, hasn't it? It merely means that airlines offer a particularly safe and secure method of transporting deadly weaponry to another location.

Of course, there's a more general problem here, because it's far too easy to transfer the guns from a permissible location to a non-permissible location when the permissible locations are in the majority. Whether it's particular types of places like airports, or churches, or the common observation that Chicago's gun laws are ineffective because Indiana is just down the road.

So long as there is a general right and acceptance of carrying guns around in public spaces, it's pretty well impossible to enforce small pockets of gun-free zones.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It is much more binary at the moment when a confrontation escalates. When an argument reaches the point where a punch is thrown, is not the first person to strike out in the wrong? When the fight escalates to a gun being drawn and fired, is not the person who responded to a fist fight with a lethal weapon in the wrong? A good person can, of course, do a bad thing, and that bad act doesn't suddenly make that person bad in general - but, in the specific moment the bad choice was made that was bad.
My comment was more about seeing the gun issue as only a problem caused by people evil, bad or disturbed; not assigning blame to victim as well as perpetrator or removing agency from them either.

quote:

Ready access to a gun makes it easier for someone who makes a bad choice to make that even worse.
No argument here.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
It's legally required to fly with a firearm in the US - the firearm must be declared, and the bag (a locked, hard-sided container) must be inspected by the TSA in the presence of the owner, and then locked with a non-TSA lock (you can buy luggage locks here that the TSA can open with a master key - can't use those for firearms.) The bag is then sealed until the owner retrieves it at their final destination.

Ammunition must be carried in a container designed for that purpose, and not loaded in the firearm, though both the firearm and the ammunition can be in the same luggage.
Well, this latest incident has demonstrated the flaws in that set of rules very nicely, hasn't it? It merely means that airlines offer a particularly safe and secure method of transporting deadly weaponry to another location.
That may well be the case. Reporting, not necessarily endorsing.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Of course, there's a more general problem here, because it's far too easy to transfer the guns from a permissible location to a non-permissible location when the permissible locations are in the majority. Whether it's particular types of places like airports, or churches, or the common observation that Chicago's gun laws are ineffective because Indiana is just down the road.
Given the near-impossibility that the US Constitution would be suitably amended to change this, do you have any suggestions?

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So long as there is a general right and acceptance of carrying guns around in public spaces, it's pretty well impossible to enforce small pockets of gun-free zones.
You may be right. Of course, for extremely small zones (a building, for instance) one can secure them fairly thoroughly and enforce gun-free zones. It's expensive, and generally unpopular, however - a cursory Googling can find the bazillions of complaints about airport security here in the US.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Given the near-impossibility that the US Constitution would be suitably amended to change this, do you have any suggestions?
Yes. Interpreting the US Constitution correctly. Go back a couple of generations and the Supreme Court firmly believed the bit about being part of a militia meant something.

It's not the text that's the problem, it's the interpretation of it that ignores part of the text.

And while you're at it, find some judges who don't think that a corporation can have a religion.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
This article is very much worth a read on the subject.

For example, the first legal article suggesting an individual right to a gun dates from 1960.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Alan--

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I was thinking that one way to make things a *little* safer would be ban bringing ammo--whether in the case, the luggage, or on the gun owner's person. Can a search dog smell gun powder?
A gun without ammo is pretty useless. So, would such a proposal not be effectively banning people from transporting guns in their luggage? In which case, why not just ban guns from luggage?
I don't want guns on planes *at all*. However, give that this long-time gun problem in American culture isn't going to change any time soon (if ever), and keeping in mind what Americans have explained throughout this thread, and keeping in mind all the many serious attempts to approve things...sometimes, there's a better chance of accomplishing a *small* thing.

So I figured that only the law enforcement people I mentioned would have any legit need for ammo during the flight. Civilian gun owners can buy ammo in their destination city. It's a compromise; but one that has at least a chance of working, because it allows gun owners to feel their 2nd amendment rights are being respected. Some people will resist it. But it might be worth a try.

quote:
Dogs (and machines) can detect trace levels of explosives, and gun powder is just another explosive. I would, therefore, expect that they should easily be able to detect ammunition, and quite possibly gunpowder residue on a gun itself. One of the accounts I read said that this man had declared that he had a gun and ammo in his luggage, which would make sense if that was going to set off the explosives sensing equipment. Presumably it was inspected seperately because it couldn't just go through the normal channels without setting off alarms (I do similar when taking my scientific equipment on a plane - if the staff looking at the x-rays know in advance that they're going to see a set of metal cylinders with wires attached they tend to be less concerned, and I then open the case and get everything examined by hand).
Thanks for all of this. Wow, re getting your scientific equipment through security!
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
jbohn:
quote:
It's legally required to fly with a firearm in the US...
[Eek!] <reads to end of post> Ah. As you were.

I like the Japanese approach to controlling violence, actually. There is something very appealing about the idea of rolling violent people up in a futon and taking them off to the police station to calm down. Might work in the UK; wouldn't work in the US without a complete culture change.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes. Interpreting the US Constitution correctly. Go back a couple of generations and the Supreme Court firmly believed the bit about being part of a militia meant something.

It's not the text that's the problem, it's the interpretation of it that ignores part of the text.

And while you're at it, find some judges who don't think that a corporation can have a religion.
From your lips to God's ear. Pray tell, how best to *do* that? Did our bit this November, not that it worked out for us. I don't see much luck with this for the next four years, and probably quite a bit longer if Captain Cheeto gets to stack the SCOTUS.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This article is very much worth a read on the subject.

For example, the first legal article suggesting an individual right to a gun dates from 1960.
Interesting article. Thanks for the link. The NRA these days, of course, is nothing like the NRA of my grandfather's day. The inmates took over the asylum.

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
jbohn:
quote:
It's legally required to fly with a firearm in the US...
[Eek!] <reads to end of post> Ah. As you were.
[Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I like the Japanese approach to controlling violence, actually. There is something very appealing about the idea of rolling violent people up in a futon and taking them off to the police station to calm down. Might work in the UK; wouldn't work in the US without a complete culture change.
I tend to agree - on both points. I like the idea of rolling them up very much!
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes. Interpreting the US Constitution correctly. Go back a couple of generations and the Supreme Court firmly believed the bit about being part of a militia meant something.

It's not the text that's the problem, it's the interpretation of it that ignores part of the text.

And while you're at it, find some judges who don't think that a corporation can have a religion.
From your lips to God's ear. Pray tell, how best to *do* that? Did our bit this November, not that it worked out for us. I don't see much luck with this for the next four years, and probably quite a bit longer if Captain Cheeto gets to stack the SCOTUS.
Yeah, well, I nearly threw in a comment about the problems caused by your court appointment process being so intensely political. Every time I see a picture of Mitch McConnell I want to reach through the screen and throttle him.

It's hard to see exactly where to untie the knot. I suspect the "simplest" answer is that the NRA needs the same kind of internal revolution that caused the NRA to become lunatics, just in the reverse direction so that the NRA becomes sane again.

Or alternatively, an alternative gun-owner's association that builds up a power base to rival the NRA and draws the sane folk away from the NRA. Given what some of the surveys say, the potential membership for an alternative exists.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Is there no end to the stupidity of our species?
No, I don't think so. I don't know how you want to assign the stupidity in this case, but there seems to be plenty of it to go around.

(Cliff notes version: Man thinks a book will stop a bullet from a Desert Eagle .50 cal handgun; is wrong. He surely earned himself a Darwin award, and may have also earned his apparently equally stupid and credulous girlfriend serious jail time. And she's pregnant with their second child.)
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
Blimey, a half-inch round. I'd want a weighty tome between me and that. Like, a complete set of encyclopaedias.

(They didn't fire at a book first, just to see? So...they only had one round? Or maybe they only had one book...)

[ 02. July 2017, 21:58: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Is there no end to the stupidity of our species?
No, I don't think so. I don't know how you want to assign the stupidity in this case, but there seems to be plenty of it to go around.

(Cliff notes version: Man thinks a book will stop a bullet from a Desert Eagle .50 cal handgun; is wrong. He surely earned himself a Darwin award, and may have also earned his apparently equally stupid and credulous girlfriend serious jail time. And she's pregnant with their second child.)
He's failed to win a Darwin, as his genes have been passed on [Frown]
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
I mention without comment the shooting in the hospital in the Bronx that left two dead and five wounded, and the shooting in Little Rock Arkansas that amazingly left no dead but 28 wounded.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:

(They didn't fire at a book first, just to see? So...they only had one round? Or maybe they only had one book...)
Or, for example, check to see if anyone else had ever fired guns at books. (Warning: that's a gun nut site run by gun nuts for gun nuts. You can probably predict the contents of the comments, should you feel the urge to venture there.)
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Another recent case: Saw headlines that a dad was teaching his two sons shooting safety, accidentally shot (and killed ?) his daughter, and said he thought the gun was empty.

[Votive]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Why the hell was he pointing and firing an empty gun at her in the first place ?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Why the hell was he pointing and firing an empty gun at her in the first place ?
Probably showing how safe an empty gun is, which is directly contrary to Gun Safety 101: an empty gun is the most dangerous gun of all.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
I used to only be sick of the pro-gun, NRA, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," "My cold dead hands," penis envy gun owners, but lately I'm becoming even more sick of the half-assed timid measures of the "gun control," left who think we're going to significantly reduce gun deaths in America if we just get psychiatrists to forget about patient/doctor privilege and report all their mental illness cases. Oh yes, and known terrorists can't buy guns, yeah, that's going to make a big difference. I don't think any of that is going to make more than a half percent difference in all the crimes committed with stolen guns or the 4000 children killed by their parents' guns or the road rage incidents or the angry spouse incidents or the having a bad day suicides or the "just got fired," incidents like the hospital in New York.

I'm sick of being held hostage by the second amendment and all the people who revere the constitution above the ten commandments and all ordinary common sense. I'm sick of people like Gabby Gifford who can't see a good reason for gun control until the moment they are personally shot and even then only want to "keep guns away from dangerous people." Like that's a visible quality.

I don't think we're ever going to pass any of those insipid measures anyway so why not go for something sweeping like the gun control Japanese have? We would still have that oh so sacred right to bear arms that means so much to the weak and fearful and the NRA might be taken by surprise.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Why the hell was he pointing and firing an empty gun at her in the first place ?
Because he's an idiot. I heard that story, too. Apparently, he was teaching his sons "gun safety". The best I can come up with is that he's an idiot who thinks that "gun safety" is a thing for children, and that it's somehow magically not relevant to him.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
......an empty gun is the most dangerous gun of all.
Rather like an empty petrol can.

This thread has been ominously quite since T got elected.
Is it less shootings or less coverage this side of the Pond?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
......an empty gun is the most dangerous gun of all.
Rather like an empty petrol can.

This thread has been ominously quite since T got elected.
Is it less shootings or less coverage this side of the Pond?
Crime statistics are not accurately reflected by coverage in the media. Anywhere.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

Is it less shootings or less coverage this side of the Pond?
When the press is full of "What on earth has he done now?", there's not much room for anything else. (At least, in the real news. I'm sure there's always room for an extra article about a Kardashian.)
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
The T. team had proved itself to be a master at diverting attention when it comes to public information.
But when you also have a significant number of people who are voluntarily prepared to believe the Sandy Hook shootings was a hoax, it makes me wonder if we aren't fast moving to a place where traditional media reporting will soon be of little or no value.

Not that I'm eager to know about gun trouble in the US, it would nevertheless be intriguing to know if, for some unknown reason, the trend of lone shooters going out on twisted missions to dispense death and injury to strangers is finally in decline.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Not that I'm eager to know about gun trouble in the US, it would nevertheless be intriguing to know if, for some unknown reason, the trend of lone shooters going out on twisted missions to dispense death and injury to strangers is finally in decline.
The lone gunman beset on mass murder makes the headlines, but represents a small fraction of the death toll from guns. To cut gun deaths you need to do something about the accidents, the drunks in the bar who in most of the world would throw a few punches but pull a gun, and all the other ways people get killed with guns on a daily basis. Which basically needs at the very least gun ownership to be accompanied by safe storage at home - locked up, with ammo stored elsewhere, and not carried from the home except under specific circumstances (eg: hunting rifles taken out only when going hunting). Even better, no private ownership of guns.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Not that I'm eager to know about gun trouble in the US, it would nevertheless be intriguing to know if, for some unknown reason, the trend of lone shooters going out on twisted missions to dispense death and injury to strangers is finally in decline.
Your wish is my command: mass shooting data.

Not sure how they're defining mass shooting, etc. but there are some numbers to give an idea...
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
We've had that site before. Their definition of "mass shooting" is when four or more people are shot (not necessarily killed) in a single shooting spree.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Your wish is my command: mass shooting data.

Not sure how they're defining mass shooting, etc. but there are some numbers to give an idea...
H'mmm thank you saysay. Still looks depressingly consistent.
Clearly wishful thinking on my part...

...fucking guns.
 
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :
 
Don't bother calling the cops if you see a suspicious incident in the USA.

They'll shoot you.


And this time it wasn't even a young black man, who the cops seem to be trained to shoot on sight, but a middle-aged white woman , who happens to be an Australian citizen.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Let's not rush to judgment until the facts come out.

That said, anyone who watches the various "cop shows" on TV knows that all too often the one calling the police is the one who ends up getting arrested.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, because I sincerely believe it: Law enforcement as a profession attracts bullies who want to indulge in their bullying under protection of law.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:


I've said it before and I'll say it again, because I sincerely believe it: Law enforcement as a profession attracts bullies who want to indulge in their bullying under protection of law.
There's a purgatory thread here: "How do we recruit cops if those who want to be cops are the last people who should be recruited"?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Although the thread in Purgatory isn't about personality tests, proper psychological assessment and testing goes along way when properly done by professionals by screening out the police applicants with authoritary, aggression, inflexibility in thinking, and other personality defects. And no, don' t give then Myers-Briggses.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:


I've said it before and I'll say it again, because I sincerely believe it: Law enforcement as a profession attracts bullies who want to indulge in their bullying under protection of law.
There's a purgatory thread here: "How do we recruit cops if those who want to be cops are the last people who should be recruited"?
It is also the training. Especially in America. They are inadequately trained in general and they have an us v. them mentality.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I was photographing a red berried elder * from a public footpath this afternoon when two police cars approached on a busy urban dual carriageway. One stopped a yard from me. A policeman got out, smiling at my quizzical look, we exchanged greetings and he asked me if I'd just been down by the massive prison wall, kneeling in the long grass, with my big, black umbrella strapped to my back. I said I had and showed him my pictures. He was perfectly happy that I had no ID, my being a white, middle class, older male sufficed. We shook hands and he drove off. England eh?

* Sambucus racemosa subsp. racemosa probably.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:

And this time it wasn't even a young black man, who the cops seem to be trained to shoot on sight, but a middle-aged white woman , who happens to be an Australian citizen.
It's a white person 49% of the time, a black person 24% of the time, other races the rest of the time.

This poor woman is getting lots of press because she's pretty and Australian. You're average police shooting victim is just an ordinary white person, and as such, not newsworthy at all.

I feel so bad for this lady, she bravely went out in the dark because she thought a stranger was being raped. A lovely good Samaritan, killed in her pajamas. She had no place to even hide a gun!

The police may or may not be bullies, but in these shootings they almost always seem to be acting out of cowardice. She was walking up to the window of the police car and he was afraid.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It's a white person 49% of the time, a black person 24% of the time, other races the rest of the time.
Just for balance, it is helpful to note that white people make up 77% of the population and black people less than 9%.
I haven't looked up the class statistics, but I'd bet the greatest percentage of white people shot were on the poorer end of the spectrum.

quote:

This poor woman is getting lots of press because she's pretty and Australian. You're average police shooting victim is just an ordinary white person, and as such, not newsworthy at all.
Marginalised people, whether by race, class or mental health, don't count as much as real people. And pretty makes things more tragic.

quote:

The police may or may not be bullies, but in these shootings they almost always seem to be acting out of cowardice. She was walking up to the window of the police car and he was afraid.
Two rookies. That might make an amusing film, but what kind of idiots think this makes a good situation in real life?
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I reckon if I was a police officer in the USA, I would have every right to be frightened out of my wits every time I left the station. I would have good reason to assume that every person I encounter is carrying a gun and is prepared to shoot me.

I don't believe that police shootings are primarily about individual police officers making bad judgement calls or not complying with procedure. I think that there are systemic problems and problems with the policing environment in the United States that need to be addressed if shootings are to be significantly reduced in that country.

Individual police officers must nevertheless face criminal action if it is warranted in their case. The systemic issues can be raised by their lawyers in mitigation of the crime.

For the purposes of disclosure of bias, I note that in The Hunger Games terms, I would come from zone one or two - the zone from which the security forces are drawn.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I reckon if I was a police officer in the USA, I would have every right to be frightened out of my wits every time I left the station. I would have good reason to assume that every person I encounter is carrying a gun and is prepared to shoot me.

I don't believe that police shootings are primarily about individual police officers making bad judgement calls or not complying with procedure. I think that there are systemic problems and problems with the policing environment in the United States that need to be addressed if shootings are to be significantly reduced in that country.

Individual police officers must nevertheless face criminal action if it is warranted in their case. The systemic issues can be raised by their lawyers in mitigation of the crime.

For the purposes of disclosure of bias, I note that in The Hunger Games terms, I would come from zone one or two - the zone from which the security forces are drawn.
That post is full of the skewed shite that is part of the problem in America. Yes, guns are an issue, but not quite like commonly portrayed. The vast majority of police in America will never fire their weapons other than at a paper target. The reason being is that the average American is not a gun-toting lunatic. The reason there are problematic shootings is that American police* are poorly trained and treat encounters as adversarial. They are not trained to de-escalate. Instead their tactics and attitude tend towards aggression if confronted.
I'm not familiar with the Aussie training, but in the U.K., officers receive more complete training even if they do not carry weapons. Not saying British police are perfect, mind.

*The level varies from city to city as the national standards are very loose.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
lilbuddha:
quote:
I'm not familiar with the Aussie training, but in the U.K., officers receive more complete training even if they do not carry weapons. Not saying British police are perfect, mind.
Oh, they're certainly not perfect. However, they are overseen by an independent body (the IPCC ) which deals with serious complaints. In a case like this, the shooting would be investigated by people with no connection to the police officers involved. I don't think you have anything comparable in the USA, do you? Not at federal level, anyway.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
lilbuddha:
quote:
I'm not familiar with the Aussie training, but in the U.K., officers receive more complete training even if they do not carry weapons. Not saying British police are perfect, mind.
Oh, they're certainly not perfect. However, they are overseen by an independent body (the IPCC ) which deals with serious complaints. In a case like this, the shooting would be investigated by people with no connection to the police officers involved. I don't think you have anything comparable in the USA, do you? Not at federal level, anyway.
The US federal regulation for police are ludicrously weak. This is a result of state v federal control.ą It further breaks down at the level of municipality. Cities and towns are most responsible for their own training and guidance.
As I understand it,˛ the agency to which the officer belongs investigates his/her conduct. The state might become involved as necessary.
The federal government only if federal laws are thought to have been violated.

ąI am less familiar with state level controls, but given how varied it is amongst municipalities, I must conclude it is either weak or weakly applied.
˛From observing high-profile cases
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
wow. all those things look like systemic problems to me...
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
wow. all those things look like systemic problems to me...
Dude. Your post says the problems are the environment in which police work instead of the police themselves. Oh, sure, you mention systemic problems, but only after fairly much saying every American is a police hating gunslinger.
They aren't. I've been there, have you?
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Are you asking whether I've been to America?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Are you asking whether I've been to America?
That is what I was asking. America has cultural issues, I think you are painting them with an overly broad brush.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Also, America is not the same everywhere. The people on the East and West coasts tend to be more liberal and outward-looking than the people in the middle; perhaps because they have more contact with people from other countries and cultures. We have the same kind of thing on a smaller scale in the UK; the regions with the highest numbers of voters opposed to immigration are the ones that have the fewest immigrants.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
quote:
Not saying British police are perfect, mind.
What do you mean? The British police are the best in the world...
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Are you asking whether I've been to America?
That is what I was asking. America has cultural issues, I think you are painting them with an overly broad brush.
We're used to it. Not happy about it, but used to it.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The US federal regulation for police are ludicrously weak. This is a result of state v federal control.ą It further breaks down at the level of municipality. Cities and towns are most responsible for their own training and guidance.
As I understand it,˛ the agency to which the officer belongs investigates his/her conduct. The state might become involved as necessary.
The federal government only if federal laws are thought to have been violated.

ąI am less familiar with state level controls, but given how varied it is amongst municipalities, I must conclude it is either weak or weakly applied.
˛From observing high-profile cases
In Minnesota (where my hometown cops shoot not only pajama-clad Australians, but also therapy dogs), licensing of police is done at the state level by the Peace Officer Standards and Training Board; they set the minimum requirements for training (degree in Criminal Justice or equivalent, hours of continuing education, etc.). The individual agencies (in this case, Minneapolis PD) are in charge of training new recruits and getting them ready to be on patrol.

Locally, one of the things being discussed is how two cops with less than 2 years' experience ended up working together on an overnight shift (widely agreed to be the most dangerous shift). The police chief hasn't addressed that, but she has said the shooting was unnecessary.

[ 21. July 2017, 14:05: Message edited by: jbohn ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
the regions with the highest numbers of voters opposed to immigration are the ones that have the fewest immigrants.
Isn't that just another way of saying that immigrants are unlikely to be opposed to immigration?
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
the regions with the highest numbers of voters opposed to immigration are the ones that have the fewest immigrants.
Isn't that just another way of saying that immigrants are unlikely to be opposed to immigration?
Voters. Not all immigrants are voters e.g. immigrant minors are counted as immigrants, but they don't vote.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Also, America is not the same everywhere. The people on the East and West coasts tend to be more liberal and outward-looking than the people in the middle; perhaps because they have more contact with people from other countries and cultures. We have the same kind of thing on a smaller scale in the UK; the regions with the highest numbers of voters opposed to immigration are the ones that have the fewest immigrants.
It is a population density thing. More densely populated regions are both more likely to have immigrants and more regular contact with immigrants.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
the regions with the highest numbers of voters opposed to immigration are the ones that have the fewest immigrants.
Isn't that just another way of saying that immigrants are unlikely to be opposed to immigration?
No, actually, it isn't. Immigrants are naturally going to support further immigration.ą But white people˛ in high density areas are also more likely to be supportive of immigration.

ą At least of their "own"

˛
ᵃ Brown people are perpetual immigrants, no matter how many generations deep they are in. (UK: brown; US: Hispanic, Asian)

ᵇ 1st and second generation immigrants white, not included. After that, they are just regular white people. (UK,US)

[ 21. July 2017, 15:39: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Isn't that just another way of saying that immigrants are unlikely to be opposed to immigration?
I've met plenty of immigrants who are quite strongly opposed to illegal immigration - basically feeling that they've done everything by the book and taken a lot of effort, time, and money to jump through the required hoops, and they don't see why other people should be able to jump the queue.

But I think what it's really saying is that blanket opposition to group X (immigrants, black people, white people, whoever) generally only develops in communities that are isolated from that group of people.

If you live and work alongside group X people, you are far more likely to see them as people, with the wide variation in characteristics that groups of people have.

If you don't interact much with group X people, it's easier to buy in to a stereotype.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It's a white person 49% of the time, a black person 24% of the time, other races the rest of the time.
Just for balance, it is helpful to note that white people make up 77% of the population and black people less than 9%.


Percentages of population (and it's 13% black in most stats) are not really pertinent when someone from another country seems surprised that a white person has been shot by an American policeman. The fact remains, for every black person shot by police three non-blacks are shot by police.

[ 21. July 2017, 18:43: Message edited by: Twilight ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

Percentages of population (and it's 13% black in most stats) are not really pertinent when someone from another country seems surprised that a white person has been shot by an American policeman. The fact remains, for every black person shot by police three non-blacks are shot by police.
It is important that people understand that the statements "more white people than black people are shot by police" and "the police preferentially shoot black people" are both true, and are not in any sense contradictory (because black people form a minority of the population).
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[QUOTE]It is important that people understand that the statements "more white people than black people are shot by police" and "the police preferentially shoot black people" are both true, and are not in any sense contradictory (because black people form a minority of the population).
It's just so much more complicated than just "a larger percentage of the black population are killed by police" that I didn't want to go into all that and just wanted people to know that a cop killing a white in America is not a rare thing.

Cops don't just always cruise the country looking for trouble. They tend to spend most of their time answering 911 calls. Far more of those calls come from black neighborhoods than white ones. There is simply more crime going on in the inner city and through the tragedy of African American history, more of them live in poverty and where there's poverty there's crime. For example blacks are 8 times more likely to commit murder than whites. Not every black killed by police is Travon Martin, many are engaged in serious crime when the police arrive.

web page
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
sigh
Black people in America* are more likely to be hassled by the police than white people. The fact is, the higher percentage of melanin, the higher the chance you will be accosted, arrested, shot, imprisoned and receive a longer prison sentence.
This doesn't mean white people are completely safe. Poverty will increase all that for white people. However, not to as severe a degree as for brown and black people.
Most police do not look for trouble. But poor training means they see it where it doesn't exist and cause it where they needn't.


*The UK has its own race problems; but the lesser number of armed officers and the higher degree of training, especially in descalation, lowers the death rate.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Isn't that just another way of saying that immigrants are unlikely to be opposed to immigration?
I've met plenty of immigrants who are quite strongly opposed to illegal immigration - basically feeling that they've done everything by the book and taken a lot of effort, time, and money to jump through the required hoops, and they don't see why other people should be able to jump the queue.

But I think what it's really saying is that blanket opposition to group X (immigrants, black people, white people, whoever) generally only develops in communities that are isolated from that group of people.

If you live and work alongside group X people, you are far more likely to see them as people, with the wide variation in characteristics that groups of people have.

If you don't interact much with group X people, it's easier to buy in to a stereotype.
Mr. Lamb feels rather strongly about illegal immigration, though his soft heart means he more or less de facto reverses himself whenever he is faced with individuals. Consistency is not his long suit.

As for proximity creating sympathy, I'm going to say that that may be true in cases where there is no language barrier, though I'm not sure of that. But we've seen an increase in anti-black sentiment among Vietnamese immigrants, and IMHO it is directly tied to the fact that they live in exactly the same neighborhoods (that is, high crime slums) and so whenever a Vietnamese person is victimized, the perpetrator is 99% of the time black. That's because it's your neighbors who beat up on you, not because melanin has some evil effect--but a person hospitalized with a broken skull may not be thinking all that clearly.

And to make matters worse, the majority of the doctors, nurses, teachers and social workers who actively benefit the Vietnamese happen to be white--a function of horrible inner city schools and white flight, which leads to the local professions being dominated by white people, many of them probably from the suburbs.

Can you see how easy it is for a Vietnamese immigrant who speaks little English to decide that black = bad and dangerous, white = helpers?

This totally sucks and I've done what I can to reverse the dynamic, but it doesn't help that I'm mostly white too.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
IMHO it is directly tied to the fact that they live in exactly the same neighborhoods (that is, high crime slums) and so whenever a Vietnamese person is victimized, the perpetrator is 99% of the time black. That's because it's your neighbors who beat up on you, not because melanin has some evil effect--but a person hospitalized with a broken skull may not be thinking all that clearly.
Yeah, but if I understand you right, the Vietnamese and black communities don't really interact. They're just in the same place. The lack of interaction means that you don't get all the normal positive day-to-day interactions that you get within communities, but you do get the negative "my sister was robbed by a black man" interactions.

You need actual interaction rather than mere proximity to counter this.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
That's what i said (language barrier).
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I went to a High School in Northern California for a year back in the 1980's. A community of Vietnamese refugees settled in my town some time before I stayed there. There was allot of trouble between some of the Black kids and some of the Vietnamese kids. I remember it because there was some bullying and stuff on the school bus, and one big fight one morning at the bus stop. The Vietnamese kids took on all comers that day, and there was no more bullying of them for the rest of my stay there. So what lambchopped said really resonated with me.

Of course the Black kids weren't the only ones being racist at my school, but I didn't see (or don't remember) any overt stuff, just the usual High School ostracism. I had quite a few mates from the sub-continent at that High School. We bonded over cricket, but one guy who really impressed me was one of the refugees. He was older, probably because his education was delayed in the refugee camps, and I remember my thirst for details about his life that I knew he was reluctant to give.

Other than my year at High School, I've been to America 5 or 6 times, always centred around my Host Family, who now live in Sutter Creek, CA. I was there last September, and my host parents are getting on, but are also amazingly energetic compared to my own parents. My Host Mother retired from doing casual shifts at her local hospital at 81. My Host Father was career-long army. He joined as a Private and retired as a one-star General. He has a heart condition, but he's had that since his 50's. So you never know, I might get to see them again before they pass on. I hope so.

I just have one friend who I still keep up with from my High School days. She's in Sacramento and we managed to meet for dinner at a Mexican Restaurant with both our wives before our flight east last September. They were telling us about the travails of same-sex marriage first under Californian law, then having that repealed through a referendum and now under Federal law. The tax stuff was a nightmare, they say. They also told us about how they had some Clinton stuff out on their lawn, and how someone shot up the sign and damaged one of their cars in the process. Scary stuff.

I was hurt and horrified that lilbuddha had drawn from my earlier post the idea that I thought all Americans were gun-toting maniacs. I have a deep and abiding relationship of love with one family in America, and that makes me very well disposed to Americans generally. My faith was shaken somewhat with the election of Donald Trump, but I don't think I'm alone there, perhaps especially among Americans.

I don't think the conclusion lilbuddha drew was open from a fair reading of my post. I think its pretty clear that I was trying to imagine what it would be like as a Police Officer, of the apprehension a Police Officer might feel approaching a situation, or even just pulling over a car.

But perhaps I'm wrong. lilbuddha drew the conclusion they did, perhaps others did too. Perhaps others were influenced by the interpretation lilbuddha put on my post. I am very sorry that people might think that I think Americans are gun-toting maniacs, or that I hate Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth and I am very sorry if anyone was offended or hurt by my post.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I was hurt and horrified that lilbuddha had drawn from my earlier post the idea that I thought all Americans were gun-toting maniacs. [...]

I don't think the conclusion lilbuddha drew was open from a fair reading of my post. I think its pretty clear that I was trying to imagine what it would be like as a Police Officer, of the apprehension a Police Officer might feel approaching a situation, or even just pulling over a car.

But perhaps I'm wrong. lilbuddha drew the conclusion they did, perhaps others did too. Perhaps others were influenced by the interpretation lilbuddha put on my post. I am very sorry that people might think that I think Americans are gun-toting maniacs, or that I hate Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth and I am very sorry if anyone was offended or hurt by my post.
Oh, don't be an ass. "Hurt and horrified" that someone misinterpreted this?
quote:
I reckon if I was a police officer in the USA, I would have every right to be frightened out of my wits every time I left the station. I would have good reason to assume that every person I encounter is carrying a gun and is prepared to shoot me.
What's to misinterpret? This clearly suggests that Americans really are gun-toting maniacs, since you say police have "every right" and "good reason" to think they are. If that's not what you meant to imply, then maybe you just shouldn't write stupid shit that implies it.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
The concept of operant conditioning via rienforcement is based on a small portion of the experience being a certain way. Hence the implied conditioning of 'Merkin police officers being afraid of people having guns would suggest that only the mere possibility has to believably exist. Much the same way that people become addicted to gambling not because they win every time, but because they think they can win once (more).

Far be it for me to dissuade snark in Hell; rather I'm just disappointed in this deviation from Dave W's usual razon-keen insight for his head-snapping logic smacks.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
There is another view, that people are addicted to losing. I don't think this relates to guns, but maybe it could. I mean, that as a parallel idea, people might prefer lots of guns, because it's less safe.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
The concept of operant conditioning via rienforcement is based on a small portion of the experience being a certain way. Hence the implied conditioning of 'Merkin police officers being afraid of people having guns would suggest that only the mere possibility has to believably exist. Much the same way that people become addicted to gambling not because they win every time, but because they think they can win once (more).

Far be it for me to dissuade snark in Hell; rather I'm just disappointed in this deviation from Dave W's usual razon-keen insight for his head-snapping logic smacks.
I don't know if simontoad was trying to say something about the conditioning of American police officers. If so, he didn't mention it in his whiny "some of my best friends are Americans" moan of a follow-up post; and even if he was, describing it as having "every right to be frightened out of my wits every time I left the station" and "good reason to assume that every person I encounter is carrying a gun and is prepared to shoot me" is still pretty fucking stupid.

In short - Rook, your reading is too charitable. There, I said it!

(I have to say, though, that I'm intrigued by the possibility of rienforcment conditioning. Édith Piaf roolz!)
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
In short - Rook, your reading is too charitable. There, I said it!
[GASP!]
You take that back, you bastard.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
The concept of operant conditioning via rienforcement is based on a small portion of the experience being a certain way. Hence the implied conditioning of 'Merkin police officers being afraid of people having guns would suggest that only the mere possibility has to believably exist. Much the same way that people become addicted to gambling not because they win every time, but because they think they can win once (more).
The problem here being simontoad saying 'every right' rather than 'having a reason to be afraid'. And even this is differentiated from having good reason to be afraid.
American police* are typically trained in an us v. them mentality. They are poorly, if at all trained in defusing a situation and they lead with their peni. Authority must respected.

Despite his intentions, posts like the one simontoad actually wrote, are typically associated with blaming the victims of the police rather than addressing the real problems of police training and behaviour.


*In the majority, though possibly not all.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I reckon if I was a police officer in the USA, I would have every right to be frightened out of my wits every time I left the station. I would have good reason to assume that every person I encounter is carrying a gun and is prepared to shoot me.

If someone were frightened out of their wits every time they go to do their job, wouldn't it be a strong indicator that they're the wrong person to be doing that job?

Surely it would be better to have cautiously alert, highly trained officers in charge of firearms, and proficient in dealing with the stress of their paid employment; rather than 'frightened out of my wits every time I leave the station'.

Or maybe that's part of the systemic failures?
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
The cop who stopped by my coffee place this morning was completely chill, and none of the regulars gathered pulled out a gun. Just like yesterday, and every other morning I've been there. [Snore]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Over 20 dead in Vegas. Another Bataclan? Or just - ho hum - the Holy Second Amendment? Or both?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
It's much, much worse than that. At least 50 dead, more than 200 injured. The worst ever incident of its kind. The shooter was a 64 year old local, named by the Police as Stephen Paddock, killed at the scene I think. Apparently accompanied by a 62 year old female, Marilou Danley, still at large. Motivation unknown.

Not the time for pond wars.

[Votive]

[ 02. October 2017, 11:05: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
On the basis that this is something like the 337th mass shooting this year, there'll never be a time for pond wars, introspection, bringing forward legislation or just repealing that fucking amendment.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Las Vegas
Now the mass shooters are trying to beat the numbers of the last shooter.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
[brick wall] [Votive] [brick wall] [Votive]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
It is't terrorism?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Och no! That's for rational reasons.

And B62, it's only 1 worse than Orlando last year. It's nothing. It changes nothing. Five hundred dead would change nothing, five thousand. What did 9 11 change?

US foreign policy got worse. If this changes anything, which it isn't significant enough to do by an order of magnitude, it will be worse US domestic policy.

That's a prophecy that.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Nevada has some of the most lax laws in the states. They don't require firearms owners to have licenses, register their weapons, or limit the number of guns an individual can have. Automatic assault weapons and machine guns are also legal in the state as long as they are registered and are possessed in adherence to federal law, according to the National Rifle Association.

Americans need to take this problem in their own hands. Our Presidents and congressmen won't help us, they are all too afraid of the NRA lobbyists.

I voted for Obama because he said he would crack down on lobbyists and I saw no change.
All Hillary Clinton ever did as a senator was work to pass the counter intuitive Band-Aid known as requiring psychiatrists to report mentally ill people to the gun sellers. Most mass shooters would not have been on that list and many more mentally ill would be afraid of seeking professional help (already a big problem.)The mentally ill people who are seeing a psychiatrist and taking medication are actually less likely than most people to commit a violent act.

We citizens need to fight this with our power as spenders. If we quit taking our vacations in Nevada because of the lax gun laws, I imagine those laws would change rapidly.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
Only in the USA is owning more than ten rifles NOT a warning sign. [Mad] [Mad] [Mad]
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
Sadly it appears the USA loves its guns and its rights more than it loves its people. The trouble is it is unlikely to change.
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
Trump tweets:
quote:
My warmest condolences and sympathies to the victims and families of the terrible Las Vegas shooting. God bless you!
Good grief! This excuse for a human being seems to have no sense of the wracking pain of having someone you love killed by a mad gunman. "There, there. Never mind, it'll be alright."
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
I don't want to live here anymore.

sabine
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
Trump tweets:
quote:
My warmest condolences and sympathies to the victims and families of the terrible Las Vegas shooting. God bless you!
Good grief! This excuse for a human being seems to have no sense of the wracking pain of having someone you love killed by a mad gunman. "There, there. Never mind, it'll be alright."
"Warmest"??? What is this ******** on about?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I’d like to know what use automatic rifles are outside the military?
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
NRA types find them arousing.
.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Serious question ‘tho - what are they used for?
 
Posted by Crśsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Serious question ‘tho - what are they used for?
Mass shootings, apparently. That would seem to be self evident.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I suppose it's too much to ask what the killer thought he was doing, or why he was doing it, or what he wanted to achieve (if anything)....

IJ
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Well his father was a bank robber diagnosed with psychopathy. So childhood will have been unpleasant. It is now reported his female partner was out of the country and he'd recently gambled heavily. So I am going to go out on a limb here and guess:
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crśsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Serious question ‘tho - what are they used for?
Mass shootings, apparently. That would seem to be self evident.
Arrrrgh - yes, so it seems [Roll Eyes]

But there must be 1000s of legally owned semi-automatic rifles in the USA. What are they used for? Surely in hunting it would be, literally, overkill?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
This chart should be up in every senator’s office.

Guns are an American plague.

[Frown] [Votive] [Frown]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But there must be 1000s of legally owned semi-automatic rifles in the USA. What are they used for?
Threatening the elected government with armed insurrection.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
There are some weird things here - including some reports that the number of shots were not humanly possible.. and others saying that it is possible if a gadget is used which is readily available.

I wonder what justification there is to manufacture and sell a gadget which makes a sub-machine gun fire more quickly than is humanly possible.

I'm truly sorry this has happened again. As the repeated Onion headline puts it:
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I suppose it's too much to ask what the killer thought he was doing, or why he was doing it, or what he wanted to achieve (if anything)....

IJ
You are that good at seances?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Alas, no (not that it would of any practical help if I was...).

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Is there hope? One of the band members playing in Las Vegas changes his mind about gun control.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Wooo Hooo ... one person changes their mind. 58 don't get the chance to change their mind.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
I call that the Gabby Giffords method of persuasion. Where you have to be shot in the head before you see the light about gun control.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
A horrific shooting in Las Vegas is prompting fresh calls from Democrats on Capitol Hill to pass stricter gun laws, but the Republican majority has made clear that cracking down on gun rights is not on the agenda.
[Mad] [Mad] [Mad]


(NPR = National Public Radio, an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization that serves as a national syndicator to a network of 900 public radio stations in the United States. Trump hates them.)
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There are some weird things here - including some reports that the number of shots were not humanly possible.. and others saying that it is possible if a gadget is used which is readily available.
Searching for a consistent story:

The gun(s) used were semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic means one bullet per pull of the trigger, but it re-arms, so you can keep on pulling the trigger until the magazine is empty.

"Automatic" weapons, aka machine guns, mean that you pull the trigger and get a stream of bullets.

The "gadget" is sometimes called a "bump fire" device - basically, instead of pulling the trigger, the shooter holds the finger stationary and pushes the gun forwards into the finger. Recoil throws the gun back, but the shooter is pushing forwards on it, so he rapidly pushes the trigger into his finger again. So you don't have to cycle any muscle groups - just keep pushing in one direction, so it's quick. That's the "faster than humanly possible".

Bump fire devices are legal under current law, and don't legally turn a gun into a machine gun (because there's still one bullet per trigger-finger interaction), although the effect is somewhat similar.

There are a number of other mechanical devices that have a similar effect.

It's a lot less accurate than the base rifle, but if you're firing into a massed crowd of people, you don't care about accuracy.

[ 02. October 2017, 21:52: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
My observation: For a lot of the people who keep insisting that All Lives Matter, actually no lives matter.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Crśsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Serious question ‘tho - what are they used for?
Mass shootings, apparently. That would seem to be self evident.
Arrrrgh - yes, so it seems [Roll Eyes]

But there must be 1000s of legally owned semi-automatic rifles in the USA. What are they used for? Surely in hunting it would be, literally, overkill?
There are millions of them. Handguns too. The question betrays your ignorance of the difference between semi-automatic firearms and fully-automatic ones, like the one used in Vegas.

Don't worry, you are not alone here...
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
The question betrays your ignorance of the difference between semi-automatic firearms and fully-automatic ones, like the one used in Vegas.
Rather than fuss about the difference, can you give any legitimate reason for anyone outside of law enforcement to have one? (Let alone more than one.)
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
The question betrays your ignorance of the difference between semi-automatic firearms and fully-automatic ones, like the one used in Vegas.
Rather than fuss about the difference, can you give any legitimate reason for anyone outside of law enforcement to have one? (Let alone more than one.)
Are you talking about fully-automatic or semi-automatic?

Either way the answer is yes.

Did you know, the Vegas shooter beat the September 2017 Chicago body count by 1?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
You must have creamed your jeans when the reports of the shooting happened, knowing you would find a trolling opportunity, you contemptible stripe of dog shit.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You must have creamed your jeans when the reports of the shooting happened, knowing you would find a trolling opportunity, you contemptible stripe of dog shit.
I really just wanted to be sure you were okay. Thank you for your response.


[Killing me]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Rub yourself off on someone else' leg. I bet if it were not for the misfortune of others, even viagra wouldn't work.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Honestly you two, get a room [Two face]
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
[Killing me]
Yeah, you're fucking hilarious. Please register as an organ donor so your pathetic existence can do a little bit of good in the end.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Rub yourself off on someone else' leg.
Well quit sticking yours out there you arduous twit.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Without looking at the article, I just saw a headline saying that President Trump called the Las Vegas shooting pure evil.

I am genuinely unsure about whether one can call an act pure evil without knowing more about the motive. On a personal level, because I live with bi-polar disorder, I would be very reluctant to call any act by a person suffering from psychosis evil. Tragic, yes. Terrible, yes. But 'evil' puts the shooter on the outside, and implies that it is an act that would not be done by most people because they are good.

I could go on, but I'll leave it there I think.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Every time I think this will sway the masses for more fun control...

And each time I'm wrong. So I expect nothing this time.

I have no hellish words...just tears. Such a waste of many lives.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
simontoad: I find the use of "evil" serves to distance "them" from "us" - make them the "other". Who knows what would tip me over? Hopefully nothing, but if another human is capable of it I think we all are...
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Every time I think this will sway the masses for more fun control...

And each time I'm wrong. So I expect nothing this time.

I have no hellish words...just tears. Such a waste of many lives.
Americans cling to the myth that guns mean protection. This article debunks that, but it does not matter. Reality is less important than the bizarre fetish that guns are in America.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
So Stephen is a "shooter" a "lone wolf". If his name was سطوري (Storay) you know he'd be a "terrorist".
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Americans cling to the myth that guns mean protection.
Some do. I'd be surprised if it were a majority.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Barnabas--

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Not the time for pond wars.

[Votive]
Thank you for this.
[Overused]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Americans cling to the myth that guns mean protection.
Some do. I'd be surprised if it were a majority.
It isn’t. The state with the highest death rate is the one with the lowest population; Wyoming. Read the article I linked a couple of posts ago. Written by Americans, BTW.
Number of households with guns has gone down over the years, but the number of guns per household with guns has gone up.
 
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Every time I think this will sway the masses for more gun control..[I wouldn't call it fun- says Tukai] .

And each time I'm wrong. So I expect nothing this time.

I have no hellish words...just tears. Such a waste of many lives.
Me too.

Like Simontoad I have some long-term friends now living in USA, who I would like to visit. But I may not get there any time soon, as the rest of my family is convinced that it is too dangerous to be a tourist there, because of (a) unwelcoming border guards, even if you don't come directly from Mexico, (b) madmen on every corner convinced it's their god-given right to shoot - or even nuke - anyone anytime they please (the strong impression given by the media here, not least when they report Trump's latest tweets), and (c) with a less than perfect health record, I may not be able to get travel insurance to cover me while in the USA (though it's easy enough to get cover for the rest of the world).
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Without looking at the article, I just saw a headline saying that President Trump called the Las Vegas shooting pure evil.

I am genuinely unsure about whether one can call an act pure evil without knowing more about the motive.
It depends where you put the focus of the "evil". An argument could be made that this is a result of the evil of legislators, and lobbyists, who do anything they can to block any sensible restrictions on the possession of weapons of mass murder. Or the evil of a health care "system" which over-inflates costs and practically ignores mental health, and the evil of those who oppose anything that would make health care affordable and available to all.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
I hear some legislation is being brought to reduce restrictions on silencers... I hope it is wrong.

If true...

I'm sorry. My mind boggles. I admit to being a non-gun (checks spelling this time) person, but why would you need a silencer? If the Las Vegas shooter had one, I'm terrified to think of the possible number of dead.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Are you talking about fully-automatic or semi-automatic?

Either way the answer is yes.
So, can you open up your font of wisdom and inform us? What is your answer to the question of why anyone would need to own a weapon capable of firing multiple bullets in a very short period of time? And, if you do think there is a valid reason for owning one such gun, what is your reason for someone to own more than one such weapon?

quote:
Did you know, the Vegas shooter beat the September 2017 Chicago body count by 1?
And? You think people don't consider the number of people shot in Chicago to be a tragedy and evil? Or, any of the other 30,000+ people killed by people with guns every year in the US?

This latest atrocity has re-focussed our minds, but as you'll know by reading this thread there has been a lot said about all the other gun crimes in the US.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Americans hopeful This Will Be Last Mass Shooting Before They Stop On Their Own For No Reason.

I’ve heard these sentiments expressed in serious reports three times today already.

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
If I'm correct, The Onion uses that same headline each time a mass shooting occurs. Speaks volumes.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Or, as News Thump puts it, Satire editor wearily hits “Repost” on mass shooting article again.

quote:
“I’d like to see a world where that article can no longer trend effectively,” sighed Williams.

“Although, judging from the reactions of some social media users, I think the article itself is probably going to be banned before guns in America are."

 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Alright, lack of gun control isn't the problem, having a culture where gun control is unthinkable is. In other words, it is a symptom of what is wrong but I am afraid until America has gun control I am not going to believe that the culture has changed.

I am not sure I want a nation with that sort of culture to have nuclear weapons. It seems to me inherently dangerous.

Jengie
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Crśsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Serious question ‘tho - what are they used for?
Mass shootings, apparently. That would seem to be self evident.
Arrrrgh - yes, so it seems [Roll Eyes]

But there must be 1000s of legally owned semi-automatic rifles in the USA. What are they used for? Surely in hunting it would be, literally, overkill?
There are millions of them. Handguns too. The question betrays your ignorance of the difference between semi-automatic firearms and fully-automatic ones, like the one used in Vegas.

Don't worry, you are not alone here...
Nothing compares with the evolutionary dead end of proliferating weapons of mass destruction in the name of the Constipation of the (full of shit) United States. It can't last as long as the other texts of redemptive violence, because they transcend nations. And it's only a genetic - code - disorder of one sick young one that isn't going to live to breed.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Last night the talking head shows were all about looking for red flags. It's so frustrating for them because they can't find a history of mental illness, a beaten ex-wife, a lifetime of job losses and poverty, anger issues, trips to the psychiatrist, political diatribes written to the editors of the local newspapers or obsessive neatness. All they had was a taken out of context remark by his brother saying that Stephen "wasn't normal." In context he was saying that his brother was only not normal in the sense that, since retirement, he gambled for a living.

This looking for "red flags," is just the gun lovers delusion that we can learn to predict who will snap like this and not sell them any guns. This ridiculous idea is rampant in the NRA world and the reason behind their narrow list of approved gun restrictions. Ask any of them and they'll say we want more good guys to have guns and we just wont sell them to the bad guys. Of course classic bad guys who are lifetime criminals have always stolen their guns from the good guys and the people like Stephen Paddock are unpredictable.

BTW Where were all the good guys with guns in Nevada while this was going on? Why didn't one of those gun-slinging cowboys on the 32nd floor kick in Paddock's door and shoot him? Hmmm?
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
So Stephen is a "shooter" a "lone wolf". If his name was سطوري (Storay) you know he'd be a "terrorist".
Why this eagerness to call him a terrorist? It's like "mass murderer," isn't bad enough he must be all negative adjectives. Stephen Paddock, and by any other name, is not a terrorist because his crime was not politically motivated.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
So Stephen is a "shooter" a "lone wolf". If his name was سطوري (Storay) you know he'd be a "terrorist".
Why this eagerness to call him a terrorist? It's like "mass murderer," isn't bad enough he must be all negative adjectives. Stephen Paddock, and by any other name, is not a terrorist because his crime was not politically motivated.
He caused plenty of terror. That makes him a terrorist, whatever his politics, religion or skin colour.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

But there must be 1000s of legally owned semi-automatic rifles in the USA. What are they used for? Surely in hunting it would be, literally, overkill?
I have friends who hunt, and tell me that they like to use a semi-automatic rifle so that they have a quick follow-up shot available in case the first shot isn't a clean kill. They usually don't use the follow-up, but want it available.

Full-auto, bump trigger devices and so on are not useful for hunting - they aren't accurate.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I have friends who hunt, and tell me that they like to use a semi-automatic rifle so that they have a quick follow-up shot available in case the first shot isn't a clean kill.
So, for hunting it may be useful to have a rifle that can fire two bullets in quick succession. That doesn't require a rifle with a magazine that holds dozens of bullets, nor the ability to quickly reload with dozens of bullets. I'm not an expert, but stalking is big business in parts of Scotland and they manage just fine without semi-automatic rifles with large magazines.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
No, this isn't the time for Pond Wars, but it is time to tell the next US gun idolater who tells me that I can't tell the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic weapon to fuck the hell off.

People are no more semi-dead when they are shot by a semi-automatic than people are fully-dead if shot by a fully automatic weapon. They are still dead or hideously injured.

Those semi-automatics can still shoot fucking fast.

I don't give a flying fart if deer hunters want something that gives them the opportunity for a quick follow-up shot.

Neither automatics nor semi-automatics existed when the ink dried on the 2nd Amendment.

All they had were muzzle-loading muskets and hunting rifles, pistols and blunderbusses.

They didn't have AK47s or whatever the hell other shit this bloke had stashed away in his house or with him up in the hotel room.

What's the deal in Nevada? Can you stroll into a store and walk out with a fucking machine-gun without even having a licence?

To anyone who gives me any NRA-shit or other gun-lobby shit or right-wing US Particularism 'you limeys would be able to fend off Islamist terrorists if you all had guns' schtick - and I've come across plenty of that shite online - I have just two words.

Fuck off.

Or three ...

Fuck right off.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
So Stephen is a "shooter" a "lone wolf". If his name was سطوري (Storay) you know he'd be a "terrorist".
Why this eagerness to call him a terrorist? It's like "mass murderer," isn't bad enough he must be all negative adjectives. Stephen Paddock, and by any other name, is not a terrorist because his crime was not politically motivated.
He caused plenty of terror. That makes him a terrorist, whatever his politics, religion or skin colour.
That's an insult to terrorism. There's a rationale to that.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
When they call it the largest American-made mass shooting in modern times what is meant by modern? 1890 isn't modern or is Wounded Knee not count because why?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
1890 isn't modern
No, it's not. Even WW2 isn't modern any more, and that was 50 years later.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
So Stephen is a "shooter" a "lone wolf". If his name was سطوري (Storay) you know he'd be a "terrorist".
Why this eagerness to call him a terrorist? It's like "mass murderer," isn't bad enough he must be all negative adjectives. Stephen Paddock, and by any other name, is not a terrorist because his crime was not politically motivated.
He caused plenty of terror. That makes him a terrorist, whatever his politics, religion or skin colour.
He caused a lot of grief, too. Does that make him a grief specialist? He caused a lot of suffering. Does that make him a suffragette?

Look up terrorist. Words have meanings for a reason, they provide clarity. You just think "terrorist," is a nasty word so you want to call him that. "Rapist," is a nasty word, too, but he is not a rapist. As Martin pointed out a terrorist is not necessarily worse than a murderer.

He's a murderer. Full stop. He murdered 59 people because he was angry and depressed and he wanted to die and take a lot of people with him. He wanted to quit existing, but be remembered. This is not a new concept. Anyone who has felt suicidal and crossed the center line on the highway has done the same thing.

We have no way of predicting who is going to go this route. Gun activists who think the cure is better mental health care had better be prepared to assign a psychiatrist to every person on earth.

If this man had, had the same desire but no access to guns, he would have stabbed a few people or caused death on the highway, but probably not 59 deaths and 500 wounded.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
He's a murderer. Full stop. He murdered 59 people because he was angry and depressed and he wanted to die and take a lot of people with him. He wanted to quit existing, but be remembered.
Though we have no way of looking inside someone's head to determine why they acted as they did, I think there's probably some truth in this. Ultimately it looks like his reasons for doing what he did were all about him - about his mental health, his background, his girldfriend trotting off to Tokyo, his gambling problems ... whatever his problems were. It was about him.

Terrorists have a cause, they do what they do by some twisted, evil logic that says their atrocities will further their cause - whether political or religious, often both. It isn't about them, it's about the cause.

There is, of course, an overlap where people with issues take on the mantle of some cause unrelated to their problems, and then commit atrocities that are both about them and the cause. That does not appear to be the case in this instance, but is probably very common for terrorist acts.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I'm not aware of any terrorism that is religiously motivated in any primary or meaningful way.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
White and wealthy man kills many = ‘Lone Wolf’

It even sounds film-like.

Has the USA become one big entertainment show? The president seems to think so with his sham grief and ‘prayers’.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I had initially wondered if he was an extreme fundamentalist Christian, who wanted to execute righteous divine judgement on the iniquitous Sodom of Las Vegas. But that's clearly not the case.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I'm slightly surprised that no swivel-eyed right-wing fundamentalist loon hasn't come out of the woodwork to claim exactly that.

Yet.

IJ
 
Posted by Egeria (# 4517) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
He's a murderer.
That's right. And there are other designations that don't get used nearly often enough, especially on the news. They apply to all these murderers, including those two snot-nosed little worthless brats in Arkansas who killed a bunch of elementary school classmates.

Loser. Coward. Failure. Loser. Coward. Failure.

And the sheriff in Oregon who handled a case like this was absolutely right when he said not to repeat their names more than absolutely necessary. Because the twisted little subhuman garbage wants to be famous.
 
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm not aware of any terrorism that is religiously motivated in any primary or meaningful way.
Then you are probably using one of the terms "terrorism" or "religiously motivated" in a different way to most other people. Or maybe the word "not"?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Martin always uses terms in different ways to everyone else. Haven't you learnt that yet?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
What is it with this US thing about 'losers'?

Plenty of people 'lose'. Loads of people aren't successful, shiny or squeaky clean.

If someone is a 'loser' is it all their fault?

I'm sorry, but I'm going to bring in some Pond Differences here.

When my brother worked on a kids' camp in Maine in the summer of 1980 he was shocked at the way one of the 'counsellors' was treated by staff and kids alike. This lad's father had been a business-man of some kind but the business had gone bust.

Failure. Failure. The F word in US terms?

So his mother thought it'd be a good idea for him to spend the summer at the camp because at least that way he'd get some kind of holiday (vacation) as they could no longer afford such a thing.

He'd help out with the games, play baseball, go swimming, help the kids with arts and crafts ...

But no, as soon as the bastard who ran the camp and the spoiled brats who attended it found out that his dad was a ... failure, a loser ... they treated him like shit.

He had to clean the toilets, scrub the floors. They treated like a skivvy. He didn't get to play baseball, he didn't to join in with the games, he didn't get to go water-skiing on the lake.

He didn't get to do jack-shit other than scrub tables, wash dishes, clean the john and do all the shitty jobs that no-one else wanted to do.

Now, he didn't go out and buy a high-velocity rifle and come in and take all the mother-fuckers out ...

But I expect he was scarred by the experience.

I know this probably sounds like some cheap-jack jibe against the American Dream and all that malarkey but it's not unrelated to this shit in Las Vegas.

I'm not saying that our society isn't fucked up. It probably is, but in a different kind of way.

You guys have fucked things up.

Fucked them right up.

'Loser. Coward. Failure. Loser. Coward. Failure.'

It's by mantras like this and setting yourselves up as if the sun shines out of your arse from shore to shining shore that the climate is created for all this fucking gun shit and fucking bollocks.

Rant over.

Sort it out. You twats.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Observing the news, certainly the people being shot and shot at were terrorised. The individual shooting knew that he was shooting into a crowd. He had an arsenal of rapid fire weapons. The act created terror.

This lonely wolf shot people with a machinegun, a weapon which purpose is to kill as many soldiers as possible as efficiently and quickly as possible at 700 shots a minute. Would it have been good if the music fans had machine-guns too? Because they could have had a firefight with the lonewolf. 'Because the best answer to a bad guy with a gun is a crowd of good guys with guns' which is what a terrorist organization called the NRA said. This terrorist organization's belief system is all about guns. So this lonewolf is a terrorist, and the terrorist organization is the NRA, and the leader of the country is in their camp. American gun amendment people, love Donald Trump, and love guns: "Second amendment people", and, Guns in his own words. So tell me again how this isn't about terror.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I'm slightly surprised that no swivel-eyed right-wing fundamentalist loon hasn't come out of the woodwork to claim exactly that.

Yet.

IJ
They did. Passed it by on my twitter feed this morning. Disrespecting the President, not standing for the National Anthem.

Can't remember which right-wing loon it was, though.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:


When my brother worked on a kids' camp in Maine in the summer of 1980

Your brother's experience doesn't sound like anything I've ever encountered. I went to several camps and none of us had the slightest idea what anyone else's father did for a living much less how successful he was at it. Your second hand experience does not define this country.

Nothing you've just said relates to the crime that just happened in Las Vegas. The perpetrator had retired from a good career as an accountant, had made a lots of money in real estate and was living well.

I doubt if anyone was calling him a loser. I'm not used to hearing the term much outside of the "Rocky," movies.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What is it with this US thing about 'losers'?
American gun violence is due to the culture and the time to talk about it is today and every day. But most of the Americans on this board are as appalled as you are. So, for their sake, chill.
Stephan Fry, expounding in the difference between British and American comedy, hits on a key difference in the cultures generally. So this goes to motivation of particular individuals.
However, Brits are every bit as violent as Yanks. Every bit as prone trying to hurt each other. The difference is guns. And part of the myth of America is tied to the gun and to the independence it represents.
The key to the problem is breaking this link. And, as far as I can see, this is more towards a vocal minority and political power-brokering than any other factor.

[ 03. October 2017, 16:19: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:


I doubt if anyone was calling him a loser. I'm not used to hearing the term much outside of the "Rocky," movies.
It seems like everyone - from the POTUS down - thinks that the way to "not let the gunman win" is to call him a loser.

It seems pretty inappropriate in this case. The only "loser" thing this guy has done is to randomly kill strangers, the rest of his life seems to have been one of a "winner".

I guess the idea is that if one calls him names then he doesn't start to become an icon in the way that past mass-murderers (arguably) have. I'm not entirely sure this works.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The motivation of this shooter or any other is unimportant. The important factor is the availability of guns. There is a mass shooting* in the US every day, on average.
It is the availability of guns and the mistaken idea that it makes one safer to have them that needs to be solved.


*4 or more people
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It seems like everyone - from the POTUS down - thinks that the way to "not let the gunman win" is to call him a loser.
Putting the problem with the gunman allows people to ignore the real problem. It shifts focus to an “other”. It is the same motivation as pinning problems on foreigners or immigrants. A convenient screen to hide the real issue.
 
Posted by Egeria (# 4517) on :
 
I guess Gamaliel didn't notice the context here. Murdering innocent, defenseless strangers for whatever "reason" pretty much defines a loser. And a coward. I don't know or care what kind of the career the murderer had, or what kind of idiotic justification he (almost always a he) came up with for despicable acts. Millions and millions of people toil away in jobs for which they are poorly paid and for which they get little or no respect. But they still manage to be decent, generous, kind human beings. They still manage to live by the Golden Rule. They are not losers, even though crass tycoons (who in terms of social responsibility and decent behavior themselves are often losers--check out the White House for a good example) may think of them that way.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The motivation of this shooter or any other is unimportant. The important factor is the availability of guns. There is a mass shooting* in the US every day, on average.
It is the availability of guns and the mistaken idea that it makes one safer to have them that needs to be solved.


*4 or more people
Exactly. It's not about whether he was called a loser or is called a terrorist or had a bad childhood or is an American. It's about a man snapping and having access to guns. Big, powerful, long range guns.
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I'm slightly surprised that no swivel-eyed right-wing fundamentalist loon hasn't come out of the woodwork to claim exactly that.

Yet.

IJ
They did. Passed it by on my twitter feed this morning. Disrespecting the President, not standing for the National Anthem.

Can't remember which right-wing loon it was, though.
Pat Robertson
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
[Projectile]

What a sick bastard.

I know there are millions of good Christian folk in America - so WHY do you allow these loons to appear to speak for you?

IJ
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
We still hear this phrase about people,( invariably males) , snapping. Yet evidence suggests that random mass killers do not have a sudden brainstorm, but secretly think/fantasise about the event, sometimes long before.

They plan for it, as this latest case demonstrates, and then at the precise and chosen moment they execute it.
These people are usually interested in the gun they are also subconsciously intoxicated with the idea of it’s destructive power.

If the UK allowed public gun ownership the same as the States then we would have the same problems. It really is as simple as that.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
We still hear this phrase about people,( invariably males) , snapping. Yet evidence suggests that random mass killers do not have a sudden brainstorm, but secretly think/fantasise about the event, sometimes long before.

They plan for it, as this latest case demonstrates, and then at the precise and chosen moment they execute it.
These people are usually interested in the gun they are also subconsciously intoxicated with the idea of it’s destructive power.

If the UK allowed public gun ownership the same as the States then we would have the same problems. It really is as simple as that.
This is it in a nutshell.

I can’t beleive that no-one noticed or cared that he was amassing 40 guns.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It's not about whether he was called a loser or is called a terrorist or had a bad childhood or is an American. It's about a man snapping and having access to guns. Big, powerful, long range guns.
I see Twilight's stance, and take a step further. To dismiss the perpetrator as a "loser" is an ineffectual way to establish him as "other". The very idea that such a dismissal is explanatory is part of the very core of the problem. Because if the narrative is that this person was a "loser", then the supposed answer is to stop people from being so-called losers. Either by identifying them earlier on as losers, or by the wishful thinking that people won't want to be called losers.

And that's fucking stupid. This is US. WE are capable of having really fucking shitty days. WE are illogical creatures with fragile fatty blobs soaking in hormones making all our decisions. WE can have poor impulse control. WE can have dark fantasies. And that is why WE need sensible gun-control laws that are enforced.

I fucking love guns. They're cool. They're tools for some very specific tasks. But they serve no necessary purpose for civilians.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Calling people names is a juvenile way to dismiss them, and hence avoid the need to actually address the problems as adults. Though to call someone juvenile because they call someone else a loser is equally juvenile, even if it's true.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I saw this documentary, which looks at one particular case. I'm surprised that, since it's quite old, nothing's been done about it.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm not aware of any terrorism that is religiously motivated in any primary or meaningful way.
Then you are probably using one of the terms "terrorism" or "religiously motivated" in a different way to most other people. Or maybe the word "not"?
Not at all. I just don't see religion as a significant determinant of terrorism compared with other more tangible socioeconomic factors.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:
I guess Gamaliel didn't notice the context here. Murdering innocent, defenseless strangers for whatever "reason" pretty much defines a loser. And a coward. I don't know or care what kind of the career the murderer had, or what kind of idiotic justification he (almost always a he) came up with for despicable acts. Millions and millions of people toil away in jobs for which they are poorly paid and for which they get little or no respect. But they still manage to be decent, generous, kind human beings. They still manage to live by the Golden Rule. They are not losers, even though crass tycoons (who in terms of social responsibility and decent behavior themselves are often losers--check out the White House for a good example) may think of them that way.
Hmmm. So RAF Bomber Command and the USAAF were cowardly losers?
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
[Projectile]

What a sick bastard.

I know there are millions of good Christian folk in America - so WHY do you allow these loons to appear to speak for you?

IJ
Because we have freedom of speech here?
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
Question from a stupid Canadian who doesn't know much about guns:

Is there any legitimate use for semi-automatic guns that doesn't involve killing people? I can understand rifles for hunting and sport-shooting.

If there isn't any, then in my mind, banning these weapons is rational in the interest of preventing violence.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
This man sells machine guns "20 minutes from the Strip."


Shop owner who sold to gunman.

Mr. Cheesey reminded me of The Onion's great articles, so after reading them all afternoon I actually started laughing while reading this NY Times one. It's so unreal!

It reminded me of the LA mayor who said something like, "We're so sorry this happened on our fabulous famous Strip." Getting in an advertisement in the middle of everything.

I don't think this is God's punishment for the existence of Las Vegas, but I do think it's the perfect tourist town to boycott until Nevada changes its gun laws. It's not as though anyone promised the kids a trip to the casinos for their birthdays and a honeymoon without legalized prostitution and the slot machines wouldn't really be such a bad thing.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Twilight said:

quote:
Because we have freedom of speech here?
Fair comment. Pity about the gun laws, though.

IJ
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Just had to turn the TV off.

Whilst I try to hold an open mind on most things, albeit with a large helping cynicism, I could not sit there and listen to member of the NRA call the massacre in Las Vegas 'unfortunate'. Then go on to dodge direct questions about US citizens being free to amass rapid firing guns and ammunition.

It’s like these folks are from a different planet, talking a different language [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
No, I didn't miss the context Egregia.

It's probably a semantic thing and a Pond difference but to my mind calling the perpetrator a 'loser' trivialises the whole thing.

Heartless, callous, selfish fucker is probably a more appropriate term.

The term 'loser' to me conjures up that whole devil take the hindmost attitude I was jabbing at, albeit second-hand, in my brother's first hand experience of a kids' camp in Maine where you couldn't ecebake the beds without it becoming some kind of competitive activity.

The whole culture on that camp has nothing to do with team work or creativity and everything to do with competition not a crass and ugly kind. Of course, I'm not saying it was a microcosm of US society in general, as my brother found when he hitch-hiked afterwards up into Canada, across to Vancouver, down to San Francisco and then back across all those great big, empty States in the middle to Washington DC and onto New York and home.

I probably did resort to stereotyping though. I've met some really horrible and brattish US evangelical kids in my time, but then, a lot of our feckless yoof aren't anything to boast about.

But no, you're all right. This isn't about 'winners' and 'losers' but the ability to walk into a store and come out with enough hardware and ammunition to mow down over 500 people in a single sitting.

That's what needs to be addressed.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No, I didn't miss the context Egregia.
Well, if you didn't mean to do that, it's a hell of a Freudian slip.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I see Twilight's stance, and take a step further. To dismiss the perpetrator as a "loser" is an ineffectual way to establish him as "other".
Trump is fond of calling people losers. And, as we all know, he likes winners. He's not alone in this - dismissing someone as a "loser" is a particularly American insult.

The thing is, some people are losers. Some people just aren't very good at anything. Some people have some bad luck, and some people don't have much self-motivation. Some people have an average amount of those things, but start from a disadvantaged position, so that they never amount to anything significant.

Those people are still people. Those people are our brothers and sisters, formed in the image of God. Maybe it's time we started treating them like it.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
G. That would limit freedom. Airports are safe-ish (Brussells...) because of security technology. That's all that possibly can and will change.

[ 03. October 2017, 22:58: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Those people are still people. Those people are our brothers and sisters, formed in the image of God. Maybe it's time we started treating them like it.
We can be guided just a little from the examples of the sort of losers Jesus hung out with. (you loser!)
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No, I didn't miss the context Egregia.
Well, if you didn't mean to do that, it's a hell of a Freudian slip.
Beautiful!
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Twilight said:

quote:
Because we have freedom of speech here?
Fair comment. Pity about the gun laws, though.

IJ
Yeahhhh. I'm sure it's just Olde Worlde me seeing a correlation there.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, for hunting it may be useful to have a rifle that can fire two bullets in quick succession. That doesn't require a rifle with a magazine that holds dozens of bullets, nor the ability to quickly reload with dozens of bullets.
No, it doesn't. I imagine if I was hunting something like bear (that might attack and kill me) rather than deer or something, then I'd want more than two. But I can't stretch my imagination far enough to feel like I needed more than 10 rounds in the magazine. (Mind you, if I was going to go and try and shoot a bear, I think I'd also want something with a little more authority that 5.56 NATO.)

One always hears gun advocates talking about how mass shooters are unusual, not representative of the vast numbers of decent law-abiding gun owners, and so on. I accept that - most people aren't going to take their guns and shoot a bunch of people.

But some people are, and until he did, nobody thought that this guy was going to. There weren't any real signs that he wanted to commit mass murder rather than just buy a bunch of guns and have fun shooting them.

And that's the thing. You can't predict it, so you can't tell which of the decent law-abiding people you sell a gun to will go crazy with it. Which means that (as is supported by all the statistics) your expected gun deaths will be in direct proportion to the prevalence of guns. Sell more guns, sell bigger guns, and you'll get more dead people.

I'd like to see the gun advocates admit that when they try to argue their case.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is very cogent, from the Post: a religion columnist calling out the hypocrisy of merely offering 'prayers & thoughts' when people are gunned down. She points out that nobody would offer mere prayers and thoughts if the perpetrator were a brown man named Mohammed; the legislative solutions would burgeon and seethe.

[ 03. October 2017, 23:49: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Sell more guns, sell bigger guns, and you'll get more dead people.
This, unfortunately for most here on the ship, is directly contradicted by the facts.

Obama was a boon to gun sales in the US, and the murder rate has been in steady decline both before and during his tenure.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
#1: Having more guns than you can count on your fingers and toes IS A WARNING SIGN!!!

#2: Anybody with more guns than they can count on their fingers and toes IS CAPABLE OF KILLING MANY PEOPLE.

So enough with the trying to figure out why he did it. HE DID IT BECAUSE HE COULD.

Fuck the NRA, fuck the GOP, and fuck everyone in the USA who has more guns than hands. And fuck everyone who thinks guns have anything to do with freedom - the 2nd Amendment was put in the Constitution so slave owners could have their guns and armed slave patrols - the exact opposite of freedom.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

#2: Anybody with more guns than they can count on their fingers and toes IS CAPABLE OF KILLING MANY PEOPLE.
Anyone is capable of killing many people, dipshit.

Got a car?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

#2: Anybody with more guns than they can count on their fingers and toes IS CAPABLE OF KILLING MANY PEOPLE.
Anyone is capable of killing many people, dipshit.

Got a car?
Wow, your wrist must really be sore, short strokes though they may be.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
No. The Second Amendment exists because the brand-new country was broke following the Revolution and couldn't afford a standing army. It therefore required the states to form militias, and required adult males to own and maintain arms and drill with their local militias to defend the new country.

There were, after all, still Brits in the now-ex-colonies, to say nothing of French, Spanish, and indigenous inhabitants not uniformly supportive of the new Republic.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
Self-defense was also considered a basic right.

But the Second Amendment has been perverted to allow private ownership of weaponry that most of the Founders couldn't even imagine.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, for hunting it may be useful to have a rifle that can fire two bullets in quick succession. That doesn't require a rifle with a magazine that holds dozens of bullets, nor the ability to quickly reload with dozens of bullets.
No, it doesn't. I imagine if I was hunting something like bear (that might attack and kill me) rather than deer or something, then I'd want more than two.
Back when I hunted with my father, I had a 6mm (.243) Remington bolt action which had an internal clip for 4, and you could chamber one more for 5. I never shot more than 2 any day of my life hunting. For moose in the fall, which are more dangerous than bear (and wolves), .30-06 Browning (said thirty ought six, 7.62 mm), also bolt action, could also hold 5 bullets. This would be used for a bear if there was ever any reason to ever shoot one. Which there isn't because people generally don't eat bears because they feed on rotting things. If you hunt like normal people, you hunt with some other people, such that if you shoot something someone else is also holding a rifle as well. Or you don't shoot, and wait for another chance. Only complete f---ups and idiots blast away repeatedly away at animals which are running away and too far to hit reliably. Most years when hunting I shot one bullet at a target, and one at an animal for a grand total of 2. I see no reason to have more than 5 bullets in your gun. By law, if using a shotgun for hunting birds (ducks, geese, grouse etc) you have to plug the magazine so you cannot fire more than 3 without reloading. And you cannot carry more than one shotgun. Haven't hunted for 40 years but I certainly remember.

I recall the change in law that disallowed any carrying of handguns as additional precaution when hunting, which must be close to 40 years ago too. Because there is absolutely no purpose to it and if you're panicked with a handgun, you might point it at your friends and I don't want to go anywhere near or with you.

While I'm at it, if you're not hunting, there is no reason at all to carry a rifle no matter where you are. Except the Arctic re polar bears and in some rare places where too many grizzly bears congregate.

[ 04. October 2017, 02:25: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
No. ...
Yes.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
...Only complete f---ups and idiots blast away repeatedly away at animals which are running away and too far to hit reliably. ... While I'm at it, if you're not hunting, there is no reason at all to carry a rifle no matter where you are. Except the Arctic re polar bears and in some rare places where too many grizzly bears congregate.
Ahh-men.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What is it with this US thing about 'losers'?
American gun violence is due to the culture and the time to talk about it is today and every day. But most of the Americans on this board are as appalled as you are. So, for their sake, chill.
Stephan Fry, expounding in the difference between British and American comedy, hits on a key difference in the cultures generally. So this goes to motivation of particular individuals.
However, Brits are every bit as violent as Yanks. Every bit as prone trying to hurt each other. The difference is guns. And part of the myth of America is tied to the gun and to the independence it represents.
The key to the problem is breaking this link. And, as far as I can see, this is more towards a vocal minority and political power-brokering than any other factor.
Pooooooooooooooooooooooost

[Overused]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
This is worthy of hell. Thoughts and Prayers - online game. Can you pray and send thoughts to save mass shooting lives?

In poor and ridiculous taste. Stupid graphics, bad music effects and I haven't really any clue how to win. I did enjoy the load up messages "slashing budgets", "honoring Reagan", "worshiping #2 amendment" and the message when I tray to ban assault weapons.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Sell more guns, sell bigger guns, and you'll get more dead people.
This, unfortunately for most here on the ship, is directly contradicted by the facts.

Obama was a boon to gun sales in the US, and the murder rate has been in steady decline both before and during his tenure.
Were you a student in my data analysis class, you'd get an F. As you point out, the murder rate has been in a steady decline for quite some time. (Obama's election, by the way, was a complete irrelevance for the murder rate, or the rate of gun deaths.)

This is because when you plot a time series, you have massive confounding variables. There are large-scale social and environmental changes over time that are the dominant effect in the murder and violent crime rate. You can correlate a steep drop with the elimination of tetraethyl lead in gasoline, for example.

To first order, you can correct for these confounding variables by looking at different states at the same time. Here are a couple of plots which, I think you'll agree, show a clear trend.

This and this.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
#1: Having more guns than you can count on your fingers and toes IS A WARNING SIGN!!!
No, I really don't think it is - unless you think that every gun enthusiast is about to go off and kill people.

Having more X than you can count on your fingers and toes is a sign of someone who is enthusiastic about X. Fast cars, motorbikes, model trains, whatever - people who are enthusiastic about something tend to have a lot of them.

You can certainly say that people who own a lot of guns like shooting guns. These aren't people who have a couple of guns for hunting, or for self-defense: these are people who like going to the range at the weekend and shooting guns. It's what they do for fun.

Most of those people aren't going to shoot anyone, ever. But if one of them does get angry at the world, they have a ready supply of weaponry.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok. Hi know my rant probably crossed the line in some respects but my point about calling someone a 'loser' is that it's so Trump-speak that it both loses any force as an insult and also (to my mind) plays into a particularly GOP-y way of looking at the world.

Call Paddock a coward. Call him a cunt. Call him an evil, twisted fucked up bastard.

Call him a murderer.

Once you call him a 'loser' you begin to add other connotations.

I wouldn't be surprised, should Trump remain in office for the full term, if the epithet 'loser' loses its current US meaning (and it's very much an Americanism) and acquires a reverse connotation.

Anyone referred to as a loser by Trump could automatically require 'winner' status in a reverse psychology kind of way. If Trump calls you a 'loser' then, the logic would run, that's either something to be proud of or you must have some redeeming features the President lacks.

I hasten to add that the terms I used above are indicative only. I would hesitate to use the 'c' word in real life, for instance. I've only cited 'cunt' here as an example of an offensive epithet.

It's probably a Pond difference but whilst 'loser' is a popular US insult, I think it lacks force and doesn't carry the level of opprobrium it should in an instance like this.

Total shit-arse bastard, would be closer.

It also, I'm afraid carries connotations for me of a particular form of somewhat conservative down-home,Mom and apple-pie WASP-ish sentiment that it can be all too easy to satirise.

But hey ...

That's not a big deal in the overall scheme of things.

The issue is what the hell is going to be done about it?

Nothing I suspect.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
No. The Second Amendment exists because the brand-new country was broke following the Revolution and couldn't afford a standing army.
So, why wasn't it enacted in 1776 when the US was a brand new country? Or, included in the Constitution in 1789? Why wait until 1791 before deciding this no-longer-brand-new country needs such an amendment?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
No, I really don't think it is - unless you think that every gun enthusiast is about to go off and kill people.
Surely the problem is more that if a gun enthusiast does go off on one (whatever that means in individual circumstances), he's almost certainly going to kill people, likely a lot of people.

It isn't that gun enthusiasts are more dangerous as a group than everyone else - it is more that they've got weapons, so as/when they do experience meltdowns, they tend to kill people.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Sell more guns, sell bigger guns, and you'll get more dead people.
This, unfortunately for most here on the ship, is directly contradicted by the facts.
Nice to see you're still refusing to answer direct, and what should be simple, questions. Though, since all you can manage are great piles of shit like this, it's probably a good think that you don't open up that font of wisdom and inform us. It's quite clear where you speak from.

You might want to do some reading, something with words rather than just cartoons if you can manage that. Try this
quote:
We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates.


[ 04. October 2017, 07:32: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Hmmm ... while I agree with you 100%, one has to remember that, in statistics, correlation does not necessarily equate to causation.

So, while a higher level of gun ownership seems to lead inexorably to a higher gun-related death rate, one could say that, for some reason such as the prevalence of a "frontier" rather than a "metropolitan" mentality, more people want to kill each in other in some states than in others and so they buy more guns.

I don't buy that theory for a moment. Nor is it a good (or any) defence against tighter gun control. And, in any case, the more guns that there are around, the more likelihood that they'll be used. But I'm just sayin'.

[ 04. October 2017, 08:00: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Not just killings - accidents too.

In the US guns kill nearly 1,300 children a year.

From 2012 to 2014, on average, 1,297 children died annually from a gun-related injury in the US, according to the study, published in the journal Pediatrics.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
That, to me, ought to be the absolute clincher on gun control. I can never understand why it isn't. See this article.

[ 04. October 2017, 08:07: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
That's the price of freedom and protection. How many died from America's enemies? See? NONE! It works.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:


I don't buy that theory for a moment. Nor is it a good (or any) defence against tighter gun control. And, in any case, the more guns that there are around, the more likelihood that they'll be used. But I'm just sayin'.
I suppose the counter-argument is that people need guns because people are more likely to kill each other - so because the days are dangerous, people need to be able to defend themselves with deadly force.

But it is obvious to most people outside of the NRA that more guns = more deaths.

I suppose it must be a glass half-empty vs glass half-full thing; if you want the protection against bad people you have to allow the conditions whereby good and bad people have access to guns. If you don't want guns then you (individually, corporately) are going to feel less safe.

It seems like an oxymoron to those of us who don't live in countries where this is a thing - but then I suppose we all have our cultural blind-spots.

Of course it doesn't help that there is a powerful gun-lobby, but again it must be tricky to see objectively whether the culture exists because of the gun-lobby or vice-versa.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's the price of freedom and protection. How many died from America's enemies? See? NONE! It works.
That's because America's enemies have realised that it's easier, and far more effective, to just sit back and let Americans kill themselves.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
The NRA/ gun lobby is absolutely right about one thing: it is people who kill people with firearms, not the firearms on their own. They are absolutely wrong about the issue of gun ownership and either personal or public safety.

But then what can you expect from a bunch of people who are so ill-educated and obtuse that they cannot read the 2nd Amendment and understand that the "right to bear arms" refers to being permitted to be armed in defence of one's country, not in defence of one's own property, etc.

A pre-requisite before gun control can be pushed through is therefore tuition in English usage.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
This. I've read that the Amendment was originally proposed by James Madison as a way of providing more power to state militias, as a compromise to the anti-Federalists who wanted states to have more power and the means of fighting back against a tyrannical central government.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It must be tricky to see objectively whether the culture exists because of the gun-lobby or vice-versa.
I suspect that the "frontiersman" or "wild West" gun-heavy mythology may still exert a powerful pull on people - although I don't know.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It seems like an oxymoron to those of us who don't live in countries where this is a thing - but then I suppose we all have our cultural blind-spots.
It's been said before that a key difference between Brits and Americans on this issue is that Americans tend to feel safer knowing that they have a gun, whereas Brits tend to feel safer knowing that other people don't have one.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Let's not sound smug: British young people living on inner-city estates would certainly (and misguidedly) say they feel much safer carrying a knife "to defend themselves" because they believe everyone else has one. We all know the tragic outcome.

[ 04. October 2017, 11:17: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
And again, all the statistics show that if you carry a knife, you're much more likely to be a victim of knife crime, commonly by someone using your own knife against you.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
That, to me, ought to be the absolute clincher on gun control. I can never understand why it isn't. See this article.
It's easy to think that all these accidents - people leaving unsecured guns around which their children pick up, people shooting themselves and/or their families whilst cleaning their guns, "thinking they were empty" or something happen because of stupidity, and so "wouldn't happen to me".

Similarly, nobody thinks that they are going to reverse over their child in a driveway, leave their child in a hot car because they forget to drop them off, and so on.

It's the same thought process. Other people are stupid, but my guns are safe.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Surely the problem is more that if a gun enthusiast does go off on one (whatever that means in individual circumstances), he's almost certainly going to kill people, likely a lot of people.

It isn't that gun enthusiasts are more dangerous as a group than everyone else - it is more that they've got weapons, so as/when they do experience meltdowns, they tend to kill people.
Yes, that was exactly my point.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
I don't have a gun and feel much safer without one because the statistics show that gun owners are more likely to be hurt by a gun than non-gun owners. I don't have to worry about kids coming over and finding it, or burglars ripping it out of my hand and shooting me, or family members having a bad spell and killing themselves, or my husband getting fed-up with me, or me getting fed up with me. Really, how do people get comfortable with that thing in the closet?

I think one of the characteristics of many gun owners is a tendency toward cowardice and fear. I hear a bump in the night and figure it's my haunted refrigerator, gun owners think it's a bad guy breaking in. That's how teens slipping home from a night out get killed.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's the price of freedom and protection. How many died from America's enemies? See? NONE! It works.
That's because America's enemies have realised that it's easier, and far more effective, to just sit back and let Americans kill themselves.
So I got the words right?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
No. The Second Amendment exists because the brand-new country was broke following the Revolution and couldn't afford a standing army.
So, why wasn't it enacted in 1776 when the US was a brand new country? Or, included in the Constitution in 1789? Why wait until 1791 before deciding this no-longer-brand-new country needs such an amendment?
Well, for a kick-off, the USA wasn't a 'brand new country' in 1776. It was still under British rule. The American Revolution / War of Independence (choose nomenclature of choice) started in 1776 but the British didn't throw in the towel until 1783.

I think you're confusing the Declaration of Independence (1776) with the Constitution (drafted and signed in 1787). So amendments made on into the early 1790's don't betoken anything sinister.

It must take years to draft, redraft, consider and amend a constitution for a new nation.

The 13 States didn't have a great deal in common other than a desire for independence. Slavery was an issue right from the outset, there were voices for and against back then.

So it's hardly surprising that it took them a good while to thrash it all out. Although signed in September 1787 the effective ratification of the US Constitution is sometimes reckoned to be 1789. Which makes an amendment in 1791 all the more understandable.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Let's not sound smug: British young people living on inner-city estates would certainly (and misguidedly) say they feel much safer carrying a knife "to defend themselves" because they believe everyone else has one. We all know the tragic outcome.
Because knifing peiple with an arsenal of knives from the 32nd floor is lethal.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Which makes an amendment in 1791 all the more understandable.
Especially as it was around that time they decided that black people couldn't serve in a militia.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
This. I've read that the Amendment was originally proposed by James Madison as a way of providing more power to state militias, as a compromise to the anti-Federalists who wanted states to have more power and the means of fighting back against a tyrannical central government.
And if anyone bothers to read the research I linked to, they would know that a key concern of the Southern states was that their militia would never be called to serve in another state, as that would leave the slavers defenseless. That is the real reason for state control of the militias. Besides, we all know what happens when USAians fight back against a tyrannical central government - they lose the Civil War. That's the insurrectionist fallacy.

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
...But then what can you expect from a bunch of people who are so ill-educated and obtuse that they cannot read the 2nd Amendment and understand that the "right to bear arms" refers to being permitted to be armed in defence of one's country, not in defence of one's own property, etc. ....
And if anyone bothers to read the research I linked to, they would know that the NRA and gun manufacturers engaged in a deliberate campaign to create the legal scholarship and precedents that led to the Heller decision. And the original "right to bear arms" didn't have anything to do hunting either - as one writer pointed out, "one does not 'bear arms' against a rabbit."

But don't take my word for it. Read the research. Ditch the mythology.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
There is also the point that in the 1700s a gun was a relatively simple and primitive weapon. I will not take up space, by describing how you loaded and fired it, but you had to do way more than just point and pull. The Founding Fathers had never imagined automatic weapons that could spray 6 bullets a second.
It is not unreasonable to say that the laws should be updated to accommodate modern firearms. Just like traffic laws now accommodate more than horse and buggy.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The NRA/ gun lobby is absolutely right about one thing: it is people who kill people with firearms, not the firearms on their own.
quote:
Guns don’t kill people. People who say “Guns don’t kill people” kill people. With guns.
Rob Delaney
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
-
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
You abusing your adminly privileges?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
has someone opened a trapdoor and we've fallen into /pol/?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
[some cool Admin-powers flexing]
Guns are people too!

[ 04. October 2017, 21:50: Message edited by: RooK ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Welp. Guessing you ain't no admin.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Wow.

RooK - [Overused]

IJ
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

#2: Anybody with more guns than they can count on their fingers and toes IS CAPABLE OF KILLING MANY PEOPLE.
Anyone is capable of killing many people, dipshit.

Got a car?
No. You?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Welp. Guessing you ain't no admin.
Big shock, right?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Although signed in September 1787 the effective ratification of the US Constitution is sometimes reckoned to be 1789. Which makes an amendment in 1791 all the more understandable.
...and the promise of the Bill of Rights was part of the horse trading that got the states to ratify the constitution. You can't really consider it as a separate thing.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Always these debates about what the 2nd Amendment really means. Clearly it's unclear. We need to scrap it and write a new one.

Something like "Armies and police can have guns and a few other, specified people whose jobs require guns." And eagles. As a sop to the NRA eagles can have guns.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Bears, surely. They have a right to arm bears.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Bears, surely. They have a right to arm bears.
Laughed. Out. Loud.
 
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :
 
👍
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
No. ...
Yes.
In the above post, Soror Magna links to a page written by Prof. Carl T. Bogus in support of their position. I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just saying it happened.

[ 04. October 2017, 23:25: Message edited by: simontoad ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Bears, surely. They have a right to arm bears.
Can we just switch to that alternative universe?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Or the right to wear short-sleeved shirts?

Bare arms....

I'll get me coat...

IJ
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Hmmm, that crook could come in useful...
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Bears, surely. They have a right to arm bears.
Can we just switch to that alternative universe?
H'mmm. Yes...that would be good. An alternative universe where we can summon up alternative outcomes.

Just picturing a bear appearing in that room on the 32nd floor and wrapping everyone of those weapons around that fellow's own neck before he ever got a digit near the trigger of any of them. [Devil]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Always these debates about what the 2nd Amendment really means. Clearly it's unclear. We need to scrap it and write a new one.
That, at least, is not at all unclear. There is a well-established procedure for changing the constitution.

With the current state of public opinion, the chance of it happening is zero.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
This must drive sensible Americans to despair.

“Bump stocks are selling out across America as momentum gathers in Congress to ban the rifle modification used by the Las Vegas shooter to obtain catastrophically high rates of fire.

The devices are sold out or temporarily unavailable from all the largest gun and ammunition retailers in the US, as fear of an impending ban has sent many gun enthusiasts hoarding.”
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of required insurance being part of the gun control mechanism. To reach the modicum of reasonable moderation as use of a motor vehicle.

Licensing and registration are gimme's; required for even buying a weapon seems sensible enough for civilized humans. But the scalable cost of insuring a weapon against potential harm it can cause seems fitting. A bolt-action .22? Peanuts to insure. An assault weapon? Prepare the forklift to hoist the money to insure it. Caught owning an uninsured weapon? Confiscated weapon and proportional fine.

Insurance policies to pay all the healthcare and property damage related to the discharge of the firearm. If it exceeds the policy, the rest comes OUT OF YOUR FUCKING POCKET.

So, go ahead, defend yourself. It's probably worth it. Maybe even defend your property, if it makes financial sense. Just remember that insurance companies will likely charge you a slight premium (heh) if you have a pre-existing claim.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
#gunsplaining heard today. Nonironically.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
#gunsplaining heard today. Nonironically.
Were you reading the Onion again? Again-again, I mean. Except more agains, obviously.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I did see that, and also this:

Halifax Chronicle Herald - editorial cartoon. Also non-ironic.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
Here’s the bit I don’t get: people are apparently buying up bump stocks in case they get banned. However, if they do get banned, owning them is going to be illegal as well as buying and selling them. You would have to get caught, I suppose, but still – people are very stupid.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
@Rook. Insurance. That is so rational, so perfect a solution in an imperfect world, that it can't possibly happen.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
I like the idea of the insurance companies against the NRA. They're the two groups doing the most to hurt America, one getting us shot and the other keeping us from having national health care to pay for the doctor bills.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Here’s the bit I don’t get: people are apparently buying up bump stocks in case they get banned. However, if they do get banned, owning them is going to be illegal as well as buying and selling them. You would have to get caught, I suppose, but still – people are very stupid.
No, they understand the political situation. Any new gun legislation will have a grandfather clause exempting current owners, and private sales and gun shows will continue unchecked.

To give you an idea of how ridiculously powerful the gun lobby is: New Arizona Law: Guns From Buybacks Can't Be Destroyedl.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Here’s the bit I don’t get: people are apparently buying up bump stocks in case they get banned. However, if they do get banned, owning them is going to be illegal as well as buying and selling them. You would have to get caught, I suppose, but still – people are very stupid.
Depends if the ban is on the device itself, or just on new ones. For example, the 1986 ban on machine guns was on new ones. It is still legal to buy and own a machine gun that was made pre-1986.

So perhaps they are hoping that the language in a bump stock ban would be the same, and that their existing devices would be grandfathered in.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
@Rook. Insurance. That is so rational, so perfect a solution in an imperfect world, that it can't possibly happen.
Gun manufacturers in the USA are already protected against product liability lawsuits. After all, if a gun is used to injure or kill someone, it is working exactly as it has been designed to. And while drivers are licensed and cars are registered, this will never happen on a national scale, because of course, the tyrannical gummint would use that information to confiscate those brave patriots' guns.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
quote:
No, they understand the political situation. Any new gun legislation will have a grandfather clause exempting current owners, and private sales and gun shows will continue unchecked.
[Eek!] Good grief. What's the point of calling it a ban, then? In the rest of the world when a type of gun is banned, owning one then becomes illegal.

And if you hand a weapon in to the police, it is understood that you have relinquished all ownership rights and the police can do what they like with it (usually it's destroyed).
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Depends if the ban is on the device itself, or just on new ones. For example, the 1986 ban on machine guns was on new ones. It is still legal to buy and own a machine gun that was made pre-1986.

So perhaps they are hoping that the language in a bump stock ban would be the same, and that their existing devices would be grandfathered in.
And that the going price will skyrocket, just as it did for pre-1986 automatic weapons...
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Depends if the ban is on the device itself, or just on new ones. For example, the 1986 ban on machine guns was on new ones. It is still legal to buy and own a machine gun that was made pre-1986.

So perhaps they are hoping that the language in a bump stock ban would be the same, and that their existing devices would be grandfathered in.
And that the going price will skyrocket, just as it did for pre-1986 automatic weapons...
People will make them. Converting a semi-automatic to full isn't rocket surgery, but does take a moderate amount of skill. Making a bumpstock barely requires any.
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
People will make them. Converting a semi-automatic to full isn't rocket surgery, but does take a moderate amount of skill. Making a bumpstock barely requires any.
Yep. A former neighbor of mine (30+ years ago) was arrested for having two homemade machine guns in his possession.

sabine

[ 06. October 2017, 16:06: Message edited by: sabine ]
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Legitimately owning guns, tinkering with guns, increasing their efficiency, all whilst a little worm wriggles in the head.
It was said that Hamilton stroked his revolvers lovingly. On one occasion he asked a retired policeman friend how long it normally takes for police to arrive at an armed incident, the worm was getting closer to the surface.
Big difference between that creature and this latest creature is the lack of any clear grievance. This new feature of the random gun massacre is liable to really screw people’s minds.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I think so too.

‘No clear motive’ means almost anybody could do this. Add that to ‘almost anybody can own a gun’ and it must be hard, even for gun nuts, to process.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It's not a new feature at all. The technology is.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think so too.

‘No clear motive’ means almost anybody could do this. Add that to ‘almost anybody can own a gun’ and it must be hard, even for gun nuts, to process.
The search for a "clear motive" springs from the criminal justice arena, where in any murder the murderer (if and when s/he comes to trial) must be shown to have the means to commit the crime, the opportunity to commit the crime, and some rationale for committing the crime, i.e., the motive. It's SOP in criminal justice to look for a motive, even though (as in most mass murders - Dylann Roof is an exception) there will never be a trial.

For non-police, the search for motive is an effort to "make sense" of the crime, for our own peace of mind. In the case of "ordinary" homicide, it's usually a relationship gone bad. Victim and perpetrator are/were nearly always connected to each other, and somehow love, kindness, forbearance, turned to hate and rage. The rejected lover kills the partner; the fired employee shoots the boss; the thwarted child kills the parent; the frustrated neighbor does in the householder whose fence or fruit tree impinges on a property line.

There's terrorism, too, of course -- where "the motive" may be understood as "service to a cause," however extreme or irrational (or futile).

More than a passing glance at such motives reveals them to be empty rationalizations. There's always a non-fatal way to handle such relationship breakdowns, yet those resorting to fatal violence seldom seem to have attempted, or perhaps even to have considered, these.

Clearly, then, there's more at work here -- in the US, ready availability of guns, a culture-wide commitment to quick, simple answers, a culture-wide belief in "might makes right," and no doubt more. In this culture, we also seem to have arrived at the fantastical conclusion that we're somehow entitled to existences free of pain and trouble; the first hint of same sends us into frustration and rage, and too many of us seem unable to manage these.

Searches for motives here are futile and misguided, even when we think we "see" one. What we're really up to, I'm afraid, is "otherizing" perpetrators, and so demonstrating to ourselves "this is not, and could never be, me."

We'd make a lot more progress in reducing these crimes by reducing the sheer volume of readily-available guns, of course. We'd also make progress if we started by understanding how any perpetrator could easily be any one of us (given the "right" circumstances, and given how near those circs are to any of us at any given moment), and why that's so, and recognizing that it's up to each of us to guide our culture into different channels -- a goal not accomplishable through violence.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's not a new feature at all. The technology is.
Grievance of some nature has been the common factor in the very small number incidents of this kind in UK. It could be that this has long since ceased to be the case in the US.

So this freak apparently did it as the last tick on his bucket list?
If that ends up as the only rational explanation I still said folk will have difficulty getting their heads around that.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
The search for a "clear motive" springs from the criminal justice arena, where in any murder the murderer (if and when s/he comes to trial) must be shown to have the means to commit the crime, the opportunity to commit the crime, and some rationale for committing the crime, i.e., the motive. It's SOP in criminal justice to look for a motive, even though (as in most mass murders - Dylann Roof is an exception) there will never be a trial.
Motive is not a required part of a prosecution. Nor is it required in the investigative process, but it often is used as a factor in determining and evaluating suspects. Many, if not most, crimes are solved with circumstantial evidenceą rather than direct evidence.˛
The evidence in the Mandalay shooting is circumstantial, BTW.

The FBI searching for motive, in this case, is less to determine who as it is to determining why. But it is fairly stupid here. The problem is not why, but how. And this will not be fixed nor begin to be fixed.


ąCircumstantial: Evidence in which inference is necessary to connect accused to crime. Fingerprints, DNA, ownership/possession of weapon, etc.
˛Direct: Eyewitness observationᵃ of the accused actually committing the crime. Photographic, auditory and/or video of same.

ᵃWhich is bugger all for accuracy, but is given overwhelming credulity.

Here is a question; Not to all Americans, but to the massive overlap in a Venn diagram:
If America is the greatest country in the world, why the fuck do you need guns to protect yourselves from it?

[ 07. October 2017, 15:42: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Tautology put through boiling ideology?
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
But how can there be a "rational" explanation for so irrational an act? Why expect or want or desire people to get their heads around this? What we need to do is REJECT it.

The very act of "processing" such acts "rationally" is Step One to acceptance of the unacceptable. It's the beginning of the normalization process which leads precisely to where it has always led: to where we are right now. We groan, we "otherize," we tweet, we claim there's nothing to be done, lather, rinse, repeat until the next mass murder.

There ARE things to be done, but these don't include understanding WHY this particular individual took dozens of lethal weapons to a hotel room to shoot-to-kill into a randomly-selected crowd of fellow humans. Trying to wrap people's heads around THAT is a waste of human time and energy and likely even counterproductive.

What we DO need to focus on is listing the NRA as the terrorist organization it clearly is, banning private possession of assault weapons, closing gun sale loopholes, expanding background checks, legally clarifying the Second Amendment so it doesn't end up meaning "any damn fool can own damn weaponry she or he is able to get hands on, to deploy at whim whenever he or she feels a hangnail coming on."

We also need to recognize and change our cultural addiction to violence -- in sports, in entertainment (so-called), in child-rearing -- maybe even in language. Do you notice that Americans who fall ill are nearly always described as "fighting a battle" with their diseases? That US politicians are forever running for office to "fight" for us?

Opioids be damned. Our worst addiction is to the drug of violence.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
... We'd also make progress if we started by understanding how any perpetrator could easily be any one of us (given the "right" circumstances, and given how near those circs are to any of us at any given moment), and why that's so, and recognizing that it's up to each of us to guide our culture into different channels -- a goal not accomplishable through violence.
Yes, bravo, absolutely. IMO, the culture needs a huge shot of "there but for the grace of God go I". Might also help with a lot of other issues, like cheering about people dying without health insurance. Instead of "I'm a rugged individualist until I need someone to blame."
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
[Eek!]
A church raffles two AR-15 rifles. I suppose the parking lot needs repaving badly.
 
Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :
 
[Ultra confused] [Waterworks] [Help]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Seriously, WTF?! Why is anyone surprised about that church raffle? Disgusted, yes, but surprised?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Because some of us are sane.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Sane people are not surprised at the insanity of others.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Disagree. Being surprised at outrageous insane behaviour is the only sane response. Because the alternative contains an acceptance.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Disagree. Being surprised at outrageous insane behaviour is the only sane response. Because the alternative contains an acceptance.
And I respectfully disagree with you. I'm no longer surprised by anything the snollygoster-in-chief does. Throw rolls of paper towels at people who've lost everything and are living in a flood? No longer surprising. The s-in-c could dance naked on the White House lawn, and I'd look away and go [Projectile] -- but surprise? Nope.

But that certainly doesn't mean I accept his horrendous actions.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
[Eek!]
A church raffles two AR-15 rifles. I suppose the parking lot needs repaving badly.
Brenda, I know you to be a responsible poster of articles. I am flummoxed by this one though. Can it be true? Is it reported elsewhere? Oh yes. It is.


Washington Post: I don't believe it.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
“All proceeds go toward the program to reach the hurting and broken of society,”

They just can’t see the connection between the sale of weapons designed to kill and the hurting and broken people in Las Vegas.

No connection. They have become inured to any connection between guns and broken lives. How much further will this have to go before they wake up?

[Frown]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I am tempted to start a Hell topic about Christians doing spectacularly horrible witness, actions that guarantee unbelievers instantly consider Buddhism more seriously. This would of course be one of the star examples. Here's another.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Sane people are not surprised at the insanity of others.
I thought degree of surprise was one measure of the observed insanity. As in, "Dafuq?"
 
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am tempted to start a Hell topic about Christians doing spectacularly horrible witness, actions that guarantee unbelievers instantly consider Buddhism more seriously. This would of course be one of the star examples. Here's another.
Buddhism? The Rohingya would like to have a word with you.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am tempted to start a Hell topic about Christians doing spectacularly horrible witness, actions that guarantee unbelievers instantly consider Buddhism more seriously. This would of course be one of the star examples. Here's another.
Buddhism? The Rohingya would like to have a word with you.
Any religion is susceptible to abuse.
There is less within the teachings of Buddhism to justify violence, but humans will fuck up any philosophy.
 
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 
I'm seriously curious as to how you can quantify that in any meaningful, measurable way that would even look at least somewhat objective.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
I'm seriously curious as to how you can quantify that in any meaningful, measurable way that would even look at least somewhat objective.
Read the sutras and read the OT. And then you tell me I am wrong.

ETA:Before anyone else gets their knickers twisted too far up their arses, I am not saying anything about one being better or worse than the other or making people better or worse.

[ 12. October 2017, 17:26: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
I'm seriously curious as to how you can quantify that in any meaningful, measurable way that would even look at least somewhat objective.
You are incredibly stupid. I suspect that it is by choice.
 
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
I'm seriously curious as to how you can quantify that in any meaningful, measurable way that would even look at least somewhat objective.
You are incredibly stupid. I suspect that it is by choice.
How succinct.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
It's a gift.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Has anyone asked Sarah Huckerbee-Sanders whether its OK to talk about gun control yet?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Still too soon.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Still too soon.
Every DAY. This happens every day* in America.


*On average. Some days, no one kills more than 1 or 2 people.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Yes, it does. Here in Arizona, there are three things that one can bet money on seeing every day on the TV news: (1) someone got shot; (2) someone's house burned down; and (3) someone drove the wrong way on the freeway.

The frightening thing is that everybody seems to accept it as normal.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Yes, it does. Here in Arizona, there are three things that one can bet money on seeing every day on the TV news: (1) someone got shot; (2) someone's house burned down; and (3) someone drove the wrong way on the freeway.

The frightening thing is that everybody seems to accept it as normal.
Only one of these is directly attributable to Constitutional rights.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
You have the choice of:

1. The Constitutional right to commit mass murder

2. The Constitutional right not to install a smoke detector

3. The Constitutional right to drive any way you like
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
If you have a child, no smoke detector in a home could be a child protection matter? I believe it is here.

Might there be insurance implications? Thinking that nonsmokers get better life insurance rates, and home owners without solid fuel (wood, pellet) burning appliances get better house insurance rates, might homes without guns in them get better rates on the personal liability part of the policies?
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
It wouldn't surprise me if the NRA managed to sneak in legislation or regulation to prevent insurance companies from considering guns when assessing risk ... after all, they campaigned successfully to stop doctors from asking their suicidal patients if they have guns in the house.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It wouldn't surprise me if the NRA managed to sneak in legislation or regulation to prevent insurance companies from considering guns when assessing risk ... after all, they campaigned successfully to stop doctors from asking their suicidal patients if they have guns in the house.
I looked it up. It sort of says that doctors may ask if the question is relevant. It is filed on the 'net as "docs vs glocks". The doc can ask about anything else, but not that. Which is beyond stupid.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It wouldn't surprise me if the NRA managed to sneak in legislation or regulation to prevent insurance companies from considering guns when assessing risk ...
Do insurance companies currently consider gun ownership? Because it would surprise me if they didn't given the strong correlation between gun ownership and increased chance of being shot (especially if providing cover for the entire household rather than just the individual). Insurance companies would usually be keen to increase premiums for higher risk categories, and reduce premiums for those with lower risk. It would make sense when filling in a life/medical insurance application to include relevant questions ... do you smoke? are you overweight? do you or anyone in your home own a gun?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
I wouldn't be surprised if the Second Amendment forbids insurance companies asking such questions, less they be seen to be abridging constitutional rights.

Then again, I'm not an insurance agent, an American, still less a Supreme Court Judge. After Brexit and Trump nothing surprises me any more.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
A moment's googling would give you the answer.

Which is yes, if you have expensive guns you want to insure.

And no, if you just like to have an uninsured arsenal at home.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
A moment's googling would give you the answer.

Which is yes, if you have expensive guns you want to insure.

And no, if you just like to have an uninsured arsenal at home.
They weren't talking about homeowner's insurance, where the only liability for the insurer would be the relatively little cost of the gun itself. They were talking about medical or life insurance, where there could be a much bigger payout if gun violence led to the untimely death or serious injury of the insured. An interesting concept.

The 2nd amendment wouldn't spell that out any prohibition directly, of course, since it predates such policies. If there's any prohibition it would have to come from later court interpretations. I'm not aware of any. Have never been asked about gun ownership when applying for either health or life insurance-- an interesting twist.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Yes, I was thinking life/health insurance, not building or contents insurance.

I'm not aware of any statistics to indicate that possession of a gun results in a change in the chance of your home being robbed (I doubt it, though if it's suspected you have a gun then any robbers are more likely to carry guns themselves), much less any effect on the chances of accidental damage to your property.

On the other hand, there is a very strong correlation between owning a gun and either yourself or a member of your family getting shot, which will result in the insurance company paying out for either medical treatment or on a life policy (or, even both).

I'm not sure there would be a Second Amendement consideration. Increased insurance becomes just part of the cost of owning a gun - I've not heard anyone claim that their constitutional rights have been infringed because it's too expensive to buy a gun and ammunition, so would the additional cost of higher insurance rates be fundamentally different?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Have never been asked about gun ownership when applying for either health or life insurance-- an interesting twist.
Here's a question, what would happen if you you volunteered the information that there are no guns in your house, and therefore the chance of being shot are lower than for the average American since the average includes those who engage in the risky activity of owning a gun, could you ask the insurance company for a reduced premium? And, if your current insurer doesn't bite phone around and find one that does - then tell all your friends that such-and-such a company will provide cheaper insurance for non-gun owners. How long before simple market forces pushes all insurers to follow suit?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
So, Alan, what part of NRA do yo0u not understand?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The all-powerful NRA. The have the political classes in their pocket, and the media too. Have they taken on market forces? Have they done anything to force gun manufactures to sell below production costs so that even those on minimum wage struggling to put food on the table can exercise their God-given Constitutional right to own enough assault weapons to equip a small army or mow down dozens of concert goers? Would they be effective against big insurance companies when they realise people who own guns make more, bigger, claims and adjusting their premiums accordingly to make more money (while saving those who don't do risky things like own guns money)?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
They will pressure Congress* to legislate against raising costs on gun owners. And America will support them. Same dumb fucks that elected the Cheeto.


*Polite for Tell them what to do
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Even if it's not an increased cost to gun owners, but a discount to non-gun owners?

It's not as though there's no precedent in insurance industry. If you take out travel insurance you pay more if you intend to go skiing or doing something else dangerous on your vacation. Which, AFAIK, a result of nothing more than the free market balancing keeping the cost of insurance for the many as low as possible while giving options to allow those wanting more risk to still be insured.

Isn't there a general desire in the US to keep the costs of insurance as low as possible? Isn't that a political issue that the gun lobby is pushing against by advocating for activities that increase the costs on the insurance industry, costs that get passed onto everyone unless there is a relative discount for those who do not participate and benefit from that activity?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I am simply telling you how I think that suggestion will play out.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
And, they would walk straight into a "the NRA want to deny us cheaper insurance" situation. Which I think will be an interesting development. If any of the insurance companies are willing to play, which is going to need enough people to want it.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
You have to remember that more people want some kind of stricter gun control than don't.

Still not going to happen.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
If the NRA prevents insurance companies from raising insurance rates on gun owners (which is a totally plausible possibility), then there is no economic mechanism to expect insurance companies to lower rates for non-gun owners. It's not like they're voluntarily going to charge less money on net premiums.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
They have been able to completely quash research on gun violence. Does owning a gun make your children more likely to die? Who knows? The NRA's tentacles are everywhere.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Do a search on "does owning a gun make your children more likely to die". The answer is not just kids and yes.

Need some drive-by knifings maybe?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, they would walk straight into a "the NRA want to deny us cheaper insurance" situation.
No. It will be spun to be about Freedom. And enough dumb fucks will buy into this.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Do a search on "does owning a gun make your children more likely to die". The answer is not just kids and yes.
But you see, as Siegfried Sassoon says, it doesn’t matter.

It doesn’t matter how many children of gun owners are killed or injured in gun accidents.
It doesn’t matter about individuals stockpiling ammo and weapons in the comfort of their homes.
It doesn’t matter about private owners adapting weapons to increase their lethality.
It doesn’t matter about the year on year death toll from gun shot.

The USA continues to be to the most powerful, the most successful Nation in the entire World. Comparable to Britain at time of Sassoon's famous poem strangely enough.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
It's not like they're voluntarily going to charge less money on net premiums.
Except, they will. They do it on other types of policy - if you can show you're a safer than average driver you get lower premiums, likewise a less powerful engine, fitting a device to monitor your driving etc. Because they know they won't have to pay out so much and so often on people who don't engage in risky behaviour, and they can make more money by charging less for lower risk people and, as a result, increasing their customer base. People want the cheapest insurance cover they can get, so any insurance company that can cut their premiums while still making a profit will edge ahead of their competitors.

So, it does surprise me that US insurance companies have not taken those steps to cut their premiums by charging larger premiums to gun owners (or, alternatively, excluding injuries/death resulting from guns owned by the insured party or others in their household from their cover).
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Alan, it is t that we do not get what you are saying. It isn’t that we do not see the reason and logic of your proposal. It is that this issue does run on reason or logic. It runs on greed and delusion. Guess which is more powerful.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
But you see, as Siegfried Sassoon says, it doesn’t matter.
Ahem - Sassoon asks Does it Matter? and the tone was definitely cynical. I suspect the last verse (not that this version is split into three verses, as it is in most other places) is autobiographical.

(Taught this one as part of World War 1 poetry for a few years)
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Indeed, CK. My mistake.
Came to me after I posted. Decided it didn't matter.
I had meant the the full cynicism of Sassoon's poem to come through on to what most outside observers can see as a thoroughly ridiculous state of affairs.
But as trumpites say, 'this is not the time to talk about it'

It amazes me that a human like Sassoon could access such a depth of cynicism, have something amounting to a breakdown and then go on to serve with bravery and distinction.
There are many brave people in America, those who dont carry guns.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, they would walk straight into a "the NRA want to deny us cheaper insurance" situation.
No. It will be spun to be about Freedom. And enough dumb fucks will buy into this.
It would be wrong for insurance companies to penalize people financially for exercising their constitutional rights. Or some shit like that.

And there's a big overlap with the people denying women birth control and abortion - also constitutional rights. You never hear them talk about freedom then.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
And there's a big overlap with the people denying women birth control and abortion - also constitutional rights. You never hear them talk about freedom then.
Oh, holy hell. Refusing to require employers with objections to birth control to pay for it is denying women birth control now? (And how dare you assume that all women need birth control or that women are the only people who need it!)

And when did birth control and abortion become constitutional rights? Can you point me to that part of the Constitution?

Guns don't cause that many deaths relative to other things some people think they need that also cause deaths. I know some of y'all think the deaths are completely unnecessary because you think guns are completely unnecessary, but obviously not everyone agrees with you.

I generally hate the NRA and have for years, but I'm still in the 'you'll get my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands' camp.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: in the US the right (generally) tends to treat guns the same way the left (generally) tends to treat abortion. Any restriction, no matter how sensible, is treated as the first step down the slippery slope towards a total ban (and this goes doubley so for any restriction that seems to have nothing to do with the problem people claim the restriction will help).

And there are a lot of people in this country who refuse to tell the government whether or not they keep guns unless required to so by law (and even then, some of them won't). Good luck getting people to voluntarily tell insurance companies that info, particularly if they know it will increase their rates.

But other than the fact that it would never work in a million years, good plan.

(It's not just the Ship, but the last few months have gotten me about ready to give up on 2020 as a lost cause for Dems).
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And when did birth control and abortion become constitutional rights? Can you point me to that part of the Constitution?
Can't speak about birth control but abortion became a constitutional right in 1972. Which part of the Constitution? Maybe you should go read the ruling.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And there are a lot of people in this country who refuse to tell the government whether or not they keep guns unless required to so by law (and even then, some of them won't). Good luck getting people to voluntarily tell insurance companies that info, particularly if they know it will increase their rates.
Insurance companies already know that people refuse to tell them pertinent facts. They simply put in clauses to the contracts that result, in the event of it becoming known that you submitted false information, in the voiding of the insurance. Which will then get reflected in the availability and cost of getting insurance in the future. Not to mention that there won't be a pay-out on insurance when your toddler gets hold of the gun you didn't tell the insurance company you had, or you mistake your daughter coming home late at night as an intruder.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
(And how dare you assume that all women need birth control or that women are the only people who need it!)
Where did anyone assume that all women need birth control? And even if someone did assume this, what's outrageous about such an assumption?

A substantial majority of heterosexual women become sexually active at some point. Even women who, by preference, partner sexually with other women might want recourse to birth control if they've been coerced into heterosexual activity (and current news suggests that such coercion may be frighteningly common).
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
Plenty of women use birth control pills not for birth control but for other medical conditions.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Refusing to require employers with objections to birth control to pay for it is denying women birth control now?
They're not paying for birth control. They're paying health insurance premiums, and birth control is covered by health insurance. Or should be. For many women, if they don't have health insurance, they don't have access to reliable birth control, because without health insurance they can't see a doctor to get a decision about what birth control is appropriate for them and a prescription for that device or medication. Moreover, if employers are allowed to pick and choose what health insurance covers based on their own whack-job beliefs, we're opening the door to all sorts of abuses. Employers could think mental health issues are just demons that need casting out and refuse to pay for insurance that covers psychiatric care.
quote:
And when did birth control and abortion become constitutional rights? Can you point me to that part of the Constitution?
First, a little lesson: Constitutional rights are not just the things spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, such as freedom of assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Constitutional rights are also all the things that the US Supreme Court decides are constitutional rights based on their interpretation of the Constitution.

Birth control was ruled a constitutional right for married couples in 1965 in Griswold v. Connecticut as a right of privacy and for unmarried people in 1972 under the equal protection clause. Abortion was ruled a constitutional right in 1973 - a little thing called Roe v. Wade, you might have heard of it - as a right of privacy.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Can't speak about birth control but abortion became a constitutional right in 1972. Which part of the Constitution? Maybe you should go read the ruling.
Hmmm. So I'm assuming you're talking about Roe v. Wade here (which was decided in 1973, not 1972, but whatever).

IIRC abortion was found to be a right protected under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which the courts have held includes the right to privacy. I don't know whether or not you've ever made the argument that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to bear arms (much less whatever arms they choose to bear), but this interpretation is even more of a stretch. Furthermore, the interpretation is under dispute, hence the worry that Roe v. Wade will be overturned (although, even if it is overturned, abortion law will simply revert to the states). Either way, it's a stretch to describe abortion as a Constitutional right.

By the way, I have read Roe v. Wade. The fact that you instructed me to read a Supreme Court decision (assuming that's what you were talking about, as it seems that you are both being vague and getting your facts wrong, although it's possible that I'm simply not catching the right reference) rather than the Constitution somewhat undermines your argument. Yes, I understand that the Constitution is subject to interpretation, and the current interpretation is largely based on precedents set by the Supreme Court in various decisions. However, it remains the case that the Supreme Court can't actually change the Constitution. But I'm sure the condescending attitude will help you win friends and influence people!

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Where did anyone assume that all women need birth control? And even if someone did assume this, what's outrageous about such an assumption?
Because you're excluding Trans people! Hate speech!!! (I intended that as a bit of a tongue-in cheek aside based on some of the assumptions and tangents I've seen elsewhere, but obviously that didn't work).

But this thread isn't about abortion or birth control, it's about guns. I was merely trying to point out that disingenuous arguments and false equivalencies are unlikely to help build anyone's case.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
My last post x-posted with this one by RuthW.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Refusing to require employers with objections to birth control to pay for it is denying women birth control now?
They're not paying for birth control. They're paying health insurance premiums, and birth control is covered by health insurance. Or should be. For many women, if they don't have health insurance, they don't have access to reliable birth control, because without health insurance they can't see a doctor to get a decision about what birth control is appropriate for them and a prescription for that device or medication. Moreover, if employers are allowed to pick and choose what health insurance covers based on their own whack-job beliefs, we're opening the door to all sorts of abuses. Employers could think mental health issues are just demons that need casting out and refuse to pay for insurance that covers psychiatric care.
I don't necessarily disagree with any of this, but that's not what was said. What was said was:

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
And there's a big overlap with the people denying women birth control and abortion - also constitutional rights. You never hear them talk about freedom then.
Who is trying to deny women birth control? There's a slightly stronger case for people attempting to deny women access to abortion, but since the majority of the country does not support making abortion illegal, I doubt a federal prohibition on abortion would ever make it through Congress, which would be required to create any sort of federal law.

I'd also like someone to reconcile the the general demand that the federal government continue to fund Planned Parenthood with the demand that the federal government continue to both require and subsidize health insurance that covers birth control, but that's more of an open request, and probably not appropriate to this thread.

quote:
quote:
And when did birth control and abortion become constitutional rights? Can you point me to that part of the Constitution?
First, a little lesson: Constitutional rights are not just the things spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, such as freedom of assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Constitutional rights are also all the things that the US Supreme Court decides are constitutional rights based on their interpretation of the Constitution.

Birth control was ruled a constitutional right for married couples in 1965 in Griswold v. Connecticut as a right of privacy and for unmarried people in 1972 under the equal protection clause. Abortion was ruled a constitutional right in 1973 - a little thing called Roe v. Wade, you might have heard of it - as a right of privacy.
Good, then we're agreed that there's a Constitutional right protecting an individual's right to bear arms, as that is what has been decided by the Supreme Court (most recently, I believe, in DC v. Heller in 2008)?

So why the hell would anyone bring up abortion and birth control (as if they were things that people were trying to deny Americans) with reference to the freedom to own guns?

Anyway. Give me a few minutes to try to get back to the subject of the thread and Alan's post...
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And there are a lot of people in this country who refuse to tell the government whether or not they keep guns unless required to so by law (and even then, some of them won't). Good luck getting people to voluntarily tell insurance companies that info, particularly if they know it will increase their rates.
Insurance companies already know that people refuse to tell them pertinent facts. They simply put in clauses to the contracts that result, in the event of it becoming known that you submitted false information, in the voiding of the insurance. Which will then get reflected in the availability and cost of getting insurance in the future. Not to mention that there won't be a pay-out on insurance when your toddler gets hold of the gun you didn't tell the insurance company you had, or you mistake your daughter coming home late at night as an intruder.
Where to start? Insurance in the US is already so expensive, with such high deductibles, that it's more-or-less useless to a lot of the people required to have it.

Before considering your proposal, I'd like to know how much (on average) health insurance companies pay out as a result of injuries sustained by a member of a household which contains a gun each year. What of people who are covered under insurance plans that are different from that of the gun owner? Are they excluded on the basis of the fact that they should have included that information on their health insurance application? What about people who are unrelated to the gun owner, did not know the person owned a gun when they moved in, and/or applied for health insurance before the household acquired a gun? Are they also excluded from treatment for gun related injuries (at least inasmuch as those treatments are not covered by insurance)? How are you going to investigate and prove that claims are the result of a legally acquired gun that should have been disclosed on the health insurance application rather than some other gun? Is the amount of money saved by the insurance company going to be worth the amount they will inevitably spend investigating the claims and possibly fighting them in court? Indeed, is the amount of money saved by insurance companies going to be worth the amount it will cost them to implement the policy and (in all likelihood) fight it in court? Are people without guns going to have to start having 'uninsured gunman' premiums added to their insurance the way they have 'uninsured motorist' premiums added to their car insurance? What's to stop insurance companies from temporarily reducing premiums to attract customers, and then, once everyone has adopted the lower non-gun premium, jacking the price back up like they do for everything else?

And those are just a couple of the questions that come to mind.

But my big question is this: what are you hoping to accomplish with this policy? Do you really think it will decrease gun injuries or deaths, much less gun ownership? Or is it simply a way to punish those who are making choices you disapprove of by denying them medical care, even if one of the reasons they own a gun in the first place is the fact that they need it in order to obtain food (which they can't pay for - so where are they going to get the money to pay more for insurance)?

You seem to view the ownership or use of a gun for personal protection as a bullshit excuse, but do you know that the courts have ruled numerous times that the police have no legal duty to protect members of the public? What of people who own a gun because they are in fact under some kind of demonstrable threat?

Why do you seem to want to deny food, basic self protection, and medical care to the vulnerable?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Here's a question that comes to my mind: why do you think this has anything to do with health insurance?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Who is trying to deny women birth control?
Repulsicans


quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

You seem to view the ownership or use of a gun for personal protection as a bullshit excuse,
Because it is. More gun ownership means more gun deaths. Full fucking stop. Keeping a gun makes one much less safe.

(Top Tip: loosen the tinfoil hat just enough to allow some circulation)
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Here's a question that comes to my mind: why do you think this has anything to do with health insurance?
Uh, because Alan, the one who proposed this scheme, said it was about raising health and life insurance rates on people who own guns?

WTF?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Before considering your proposal, I'd like to know how much (on average) health insurance companies pay out as a result of injuries sustained by a member of a household which contains a gun each year.
A simple Google gives me annual costs of gunshot wounds of $126b. Which, of course, covers not just those where the gun was owned by a member of the same household. So, that is a maximum figure (it's also a decade old). How many of those deaths and injuries are the direct consequence of private gun ownership (accidental shootings at home, or shooting by someone responding to the presence of a gun)? If we assume 10% then that's still an annual cost of something like $100 per household.

quote:
Are people without guns going to have to start having 'uninsured gunman' premiums added to their insurance the way they have 'uninsured motorist' premiums added to their car insurance?
Clearly if someone gets shot by someone else's gun then they would still need to be covered. Someone can't be held responsible for someone else's decision to fire a gun in their vicinity - they can be held responsible if they choose to keep a dangerous object in their home or on their person.

quote:
What's to stop insurance companies from temporarily reducing premiums to attract customers, and then, once everyone has adopted the lower non-gun premium, jacking the price back up like they do for everything else?
The same as happens for introductory rates for utilities, bank accounts etc. Once the period covered by the introductory period ends then the customer can choose to take out a product with another provider giving the lower rates. If you want to keep customers you can't let competitors undercut you, that's how a market economy is supposed to work.

quote:
But my big question is this: what are you hoping to accomplish with this policy? Do you really think it will decrease gun injuries or deaths, much less gun ownership?
People who make the choice to own guns, on average, increase the costs to everyone of medical treatment by increasing the number of people needing treatment for gunshot wounds. If they choose to do that then it is only fair that they pay more towards those costs, which as they're largely borne by insurance companies would logically be collected by increased premiums. If those extra costs makes people think about whether or not to own a gun, with many people deciding not to bear that cost and so not own a gun that can only be a good thing.

quote:
You seem to view the ownership or use of a gun for personal protection as a bullshit excuse
You are correct. The stats are clear, you )or your loved ones) are far more likely to be killed or injured by a gun you own than from anyone who you might need protection from. Self-protection is not a valid reason to own a gun (that, anyway, is what has been the conclusion of the UK authorities for a century).

quote:
Why do you seem to want to deny food, basic self protection, and medical care to the vulnerable?
I'm doing no such thing. Remove the costs of a substantial proportion of gun shot wounds and there will be a reduction in insurance costs - making that more affordable, leaving more for food. Of course, ideally there should be affordable health care and a decent welfare system ... but that also doesn't seem likely in the current pseudo-barbarism of the US.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Who is trying to deny women birth control?
Repulsicans
Even if every damn health insurance company in the US refused to provide free birth control to every damn human being in the country, they would not be denying women birth control. You are, once again, demonstrating your dishonesty while not helping your case at all (actually, maybe that's not true, I don't know what your argument is other than that guns are bad and the NRA is bad).


quote:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

You seem to view the ownership or use of a gun for personal protection as a bullshit excuse,
Because it is. More gun ownership means more gun deaths. Full fucking stop. Keeping a gun makes one much less safe.

(Top Tip: loosen the tinfoil hat just enough to allow some circulation)
You know, I lived in DC during the handgun ban. I had a guy who repeatedly came to my front door to masturbate. I called the cops any number of times. In addition to not having any legal obligation to protect citizens, I was told by a friend on the force that the DC police were, at the time, trying to improve their crime stats by simply not taking reports of crimes, particularly those that they thought were likely to remain open. I was advised by every damn cop and military person I know to buy a gun, because while I would be legally screwed if I ever had to use it (which seemed likely), being legally screwed is better than being dead.

So fuck you and your moronic world of rainbows and unicorns where nothing bad ever happens to anyone and if it does you get to be the one who decides who it happens to. Go ahead, stick your fingers in your ears and scream 'lah, lah, lah, I can't hear you.' The only thing you're doing is driving people away from anything you advocate for (which doesn't seem to be much, mostly you seem to be against everything).

I'm sorry, what was your proposal for reducing the amount of gun violence in the US? At least Alan Cresswell is trying and not just bitching and whining.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Even if every damn health insurance company in the US refused to provide free birth control to every damn human being in the country, they would not be denying women birth control.
Alright. In their desire to end birth control, they are attempting to make it difficult for as many women as they can. Starting with the poor.
Happy now?

I genuinely feel for your experience. But it is irrelevant. Individual cases make bad laws and do not prove a point. More guns equals less safe citizens. It is a fact.


quote:

I'm sorry, what was your proposal for reducing the amount of gun violence in the US? At least Alan Cresswell is trying and not just bitching and whining.
Alan made a commendable effort, but one that will not work.
What will change things? I don't know. The first is trying to make congress represent the people rather than the NRA.
Education should be the second, but people are very resistant to that.

Rainbows and unicorns? You know me so well.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I was told by a friend on the force
All this tells me is that your cop 'friend' wasn't a friend enough to turn out and put the frighteners on someone who was probably mentally ill.

And that you were prepared to kill someone who was probably mentally ill.

Pretty certain you just shot the high horse you rode in on.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I had a guy who repeatedly came to my front door to masturbate.
A dog trained to snap at (but not actually bite) his you-know-what might have been useful.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Saysay, perched on top of their horse, would win limbo contests.

The weasels are asking for their words back.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Who is trying to deny women birth control?
Asked and answered:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
For many women, if they don't have health insurance, they don't have access to reliable birth control, because without health insurance they can't see a doctor to get a decision about what birth control is appropriate for them and a prescription for that device or medication.
quote:
saysay, showing that what she cares about is her right to kill people:
Good, then we're agreed that there's a Constitutional right protecting an individual's right to bear arms, as that is what has been decided by the Supreme Court (most recently, I believe, in DC v. Heller in 2008)?
Heller was a stupid decision. And the second amendment should be repealed.

[ 31. October 2017, 01:23: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Well then Alan was barking up the wrong tree. It should be homeowner's insurance that jacks up your rates for having a gun. Because if someone is injured on your property, it's your homeowner's insurance that will be liable for damages.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Even if every damn health insurance company in the US refused to provide free birth control to every damn human being in the country, they would not be denying women birth control.
Alright. In their desire to end birth control, they are attempting to make it difficult for as many women as they can. Starting with the poor.
Happy now?
No.

Who desires to end birth control? And what is your evidence of this? (hint: not wanting the feds involved is not evidence of a desire to "end" birth control). How are "they" attempting to make it difficult for as many women as they can? Most health insurance companies and workplaces would probably require women to be on birth control and/or sterilized if they could do so since it cuts pregnancy costs (both to the insurance company and to all places of business) so much.

Besides, the poor's birth control is covered under Medicaid (provided by the government).

quote:
I genuinely feel for your experience. But it is irrelevant. Individual cases make bad laws and do not prove a point. More guns equals less safe citizens. It is a fact.
It's a fact that more guns equal less safe citizens? Define "safe," because I'm guessing you're trying to use the correlation between a high rate of gun ownership and a high rate of gun violence to imply that this equates to more "safety." What else are you willing to ban in the name of "safety"? (hey, here's an idea taken from the Trump playbook, what about banning immigrants from Muslim countries and Mexico? To be clear, it's not that I support that, but it's same type of argument).

And nobody I know lives according to statistics. You haven't provided a single reason why anyone should be willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of a bunch of people who have made it clear that they would just as soon see them all dead.

Try again. Come up with some law that would actually work to reduce violence in the US. No, really.

quote:
quote:

I'm sorry, what was your proposal for reducing the amount of gun violence in the US? At least Alan Cresswell is trying and not just bitching and whining.
Alan made a commendable effort, but one that will not work.
What will change things? I don't know. The first is trying to make congress represent the people rather than the NRA.
I agree that Congress doesn't necessarily represent the people, but I tend to think that's mostly because power tends to represent itself. But what the hell is your obsession with the NRA? Why exactly do you think they have so much power? Why do you think Congress represents the NRA rather than the people? They don't contribute much money to Congress, particularly relative to other industries. And most people may want more gun control, but that's not an actual bill. Pretty much all of the gun control measures proposed in the wake of Las Vegas wouldn't have done shit to prevent it.

quote:

Education should be the second, but people are very resistant to that.
What kind of education? I'm assuming you're not talking about gun safety, such as that provided by the NRA. So just what the hell are you talking about?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Clearly if someone gets shot by someone else's gun then they would still need to be covered. Someone can't be held responsible for someone else's decision to fire a gun in their vicinity - they can be held responsible if they choose to keep a dangerous object in their home or on their person.
Well, not really. If Alice shoots Bob, then Charlie can't in any sense be held responsible because he owns a gun (unless Alice shot Bob with Charlie's gun, of course).

So what you come down to now is how insurers choose to raise the money to pay for gunshot injuries caused by unknown or uninsured shooters. And that's a purely commercial choice on the part of the insurance company.

It suits your sense of justice to allocate that cost to gun owners, but there's no reason that the insurer has to make the same choice.

Car drivers buy "uninsured motorist" cover because they might be crashed into by an uninsured motorist. The cost of this coverage scales with the value of your particular car, and with the mileage and kind of driving you do, and it is paid by the victim of the uninsured motorist. Even though we can't hold someone responsible for someone else's decision to crash a car into them.
They're not paying a premium because they're a car owner and are sharing in the responsibilities of other owners of cars - they're paying a premium because their valuable (or less valuable) property is at risk of being damaged by strangers.

So the natural place for an insurer to put "uninsured gunman" coverage is on the premium of the potential victim. If you live in a place with lots of shootings, expect to pay a high price.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I was told by a friend on the force
All this tells me is that your cop 'friend' wasn't a friend enough to turn out and put the frighteners on someone who was probably mentally ill.
This makes no sense. Even if he had been working that shift (which, for the most part, he wasn't), his getting fired for disobeying orders might have helped me temporarily, but how would it have helped anyone in the long run? And what do you suppose he would have used to put the "frighteners" on someone?

quote:
And that you were prepared to kill someone who was probably mentally ill.
Interesting assumption. Do you know how many potential crimes have been stopped because one person has a gun but doesn't fire it at all, much less kill anyone? Of course not, because the data isn't available. And even if it were, most anti-gun people would discount it, because it's impossible to know if the gun actually prevented a crime because the crime didn't happen.

quote:
Pretty certain you just shot the high horse you rode in on.
I'm the one on a high horse on this thread? Yeah, sure, uh-huh.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Define "safe," because I'm guessing you're trying to use the correlation between a high rate of gun ownership and a high rate of gun violence to imply that this equates to more "safety." What else are you willing to ban in the name of "safety"? (hey, here's an idea taken from the Trump playbook, what about banning immigrants from Muslim countries and Mexico?
The argument in the Trump playbook is factually incorrect. Immigrants do not commit more crimes than average. Whether or not there is any kind of justice in his idea (and you can probably guess my opinion on that), his numbers just don't add up. If you want "safety", you should kick Americans out...

The statistics on gun ownership are also clear - people who own guns are more likely to be the victims of gun violence than people who don't. Children in gun-owning households are more likely to be shot than those in households without guns. And so on.

It's perfectly reasonable for individual people to think "I'm not like that." They might be right. It is perfectly possible for a particular individual to be safer with a gun than without one. But if all such individuals think that, then the statistics conclusively prove that a majority of them are wrong.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Who is trying to deny women birth control?
Asked and answered:
You're playing word games and attempting to define "deny" the way you would like it defined, not the way it is commonly understood. Is anyone denying people guns by not paying for them?


quote:
saysay, showing that what she cares about is her right to kill people:
Because wanting the right to defend yourself using any means necessary is the same as wanting the right to kill people?

OK.


quote:
Heller was a stupid decision. And the second amendment should be repealed.
Well, at least you're honest. Good luck getting the second amendment repealed.

And even if you did successfully do that, what do you plan to do about all the guns that are already on the ground?
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If we assume 10% then that's still an annual cost of something like $100 per household.
That's actually not too bad compared to what most people are paying for insurance anyway. In fact, it's possible most gun owners would actually pay it (or more) just to avoid the risk of having to cover the medical bills should there be an accident. You'd still have to fight people's reluctance to let companies have the information that they are in fact gun owners, but it's possible. But I do imagine there would probably be a court challenge based on the same privacy protections that supposedly give women the constitutional right to abortion.

Though while we're at it, can we also raise rates on the obese, to pay for the $207 billion in annual health care costs they incur? Given the way the thread is going, I won't even suggest dramatically hiking the premiums of women who might get pregnant because of the associated health care costs, even though our rates were astronomical before the ACA.

quote:
If you want to keep customers you can't let competitors undercut you, that's how a market economy is supposed to work.
In the US, neither health care nor health care insurance operate in a free market economy.

quote:
Remove the costs of a substantial proportion of gun shot wounds and there will be a reduction in insurance costs - making that more affordable, leaving more for food. Of course, ideally there should be affordable health care and a decent welfare system ... but that also doesn't seem likely in the current pseudo-barbarism of the US.
Well, no. If you're asking people to pay substantially more in order to own the gun they use to get food, they will not have more money for food. You'd have to lower health insurance rates a lot (probably by more than the amount that would be saved simply by eliminating gunshot related expenses) in order to make up for the amount that many people would have to spend on food if they had to give up their guns.

Your second sentence I agree with.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The argument in the Trump playbook is factually incorrect. Immigrants do not commit more crimes than average. Whether or not there is any kind of justice in his idea (and you can probably guess my opinion on that), his numbers just don't add up. If you want "safety", you should kick Americans out...

The statistics on gun ownership are also clear - people who own guns are more likely to be the victims of gun violence than people who don't. Children in gun-owning households are more likely to be shot than those in households without guns. And so on.
This is precisely why I was asking for a definition of "safe". Safe from crime? Safe from gun violence? Safe from accidents, cultural shift, minorities, the government? Are you (general) basing your definition of "safe" purely around whether or not someone is going to be physically injured or killed? If so, why? Is it legitimate for anyone to base their definition of safety around something else? If so, what and why (what makes that legitimate to your mind)?

There are far more accidental deaths caused by cars than there are by firearms. There are far more accidental injuries and deaths from car accidents among people who own cars than among people who don't. Children who live in car-owning households are more likely to be killed by a car than those who don't. And so on.

quote:
It's perfectly reasonable for individual people to think "I'm not like that." They might be right. It is perfectly possible for a particular individual to be safer with a gun than without one. But if all such individuals think that, then the statistics conclusively prove that a majority of them are wrong.
Assuming your definition of safety is based around a decreased risk of death or physical injury (as it seems to be), how do you go about convincing people who have evidence to the contrary that they should view themselves as part of a statistical whole rather than as individuals? What argument does anyone arguing against gun ownership have that any individual should sacrifice their own well-being (to the point of risking their death) for the good of the group (in which people are statistically less likely to die)? And how would you convince those who do not define their safety according to their chances of physical injury or death that they should do so?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

There are far more accidental deaths caused by cars than there are by firearms. There are far more accidental injuries and deaths from car accidents among people who own cars than among people who don't. Children who live in car-owning households are more likely to be killed by a car than those who don't. And so on.
I will take your word for it that that is true. But people don't buy cars to be safe. People buy cars as transportation, to get them to places. People without cars don't get to go to as many places as conveniently (certain city dwellers excepted).

By contrast, many people do buy guns for safety. They explicitly choose to own a gun for home defense, or self-protection. Statistically, they are doing the wrong thing.

(The equivalent statement for cars would be if the car made it harder for you to get around. That's why I didn't own a car in London - it would have made my life harder, not easier.)


quote:
Assuming your definition of safety is based around a decreased risk of death or physical injury (as it seems to be), how do you go about convincing people who have evidence to the contrary that they should view themselves as part of a statistical whole rather than as individuals? What argument does anyone arguing against gun ownership have that any individual should sacrifice their own well-being (to the point of risking their death) for the good of the group (in which people are statistically less likely to die)? And how would you convince those who do not define their safety according to their chances of physical injury or death that they should do so?
I don't think you understand what I said.

On average, people who own guns are less safe - they are more likely to be shot. This is a well-measured statistical truth.

It may well be true that there are individuals within the group of gun owners who are safer because they own a gun. The data does not exclude this possibility. If you are such a person, you giving up your gun does not improve your safety, nor does it improve the average safety of all people.

But it is impossible for this statement to be true of all gun-owners. For it to be true of you, you would have to be unusual.

The trap is that people tend to think that they are better than they really are (cf. the number of drivers who claim to be above average), and it is natural for a gun-owner to think that he or she is more disciplined with the gun than they really are.

The point is not that people who are safer with guns should sacrifice both the gun and their safety for the common good - the point is that most people who think that they are safer with a gun are wrong. This does not preclude the possibility that some of them are right.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well then Alan was barking up the wrong tree. It should be homeowner's insurance that jacks up your rates for having a gun. Because if someone is injured on your property, it's your homeowner's insurance that will be liable for damages.
I'll accept that, I don't really know where different liabilities fall within different insurance categories in the US. My argument doesn't substantially change if it was homeowners insurance rather than health insurance.

[in the UK business liability insurance covers injury in business premises, there is no equivalent for homeowners - household building and contents insurance only covers damage or theft to property]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I had a guy who repeatedly came to my front door to masturbate. I called the cops any number of times. ... I was advised by every damn cop and military person I know to buy a gun, because while I would be legally screwed if I ever had to use it (which seemed likely), being legally screwed is better than being dead.
First, I'm going to say that IMO the cops were failing to do their job in not responding to repeated calls about repeated criminal activity.

BUT, the advice you received seems vastly over the top. I'm not going to minimize the real impact of such crimes, which would probably be considered a form of seual assault, that you probably wouldn't feel free to leave your home while he was there etc. But, unless you're using the word "masturbate" in a way very different from how we use it in the UK, he was not posing a threat to your life as far as it's possible to judge from what you said (of course, if he was there with a gun clearly visible, if he was repeatedly trying to force the door open etc then that may be different). Equipping yourself to use lethal force in response to such situations looks incredibly disproportionate. Quite literally over-kill.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't think you understand what I said.

On average, people who own guns are less safe - they are more likely to be shot. This is a well-measured statistical truth.
And I don't think you understand what I said. You are using the likelihood of a person being shot as the only measure of whether a person is more or less "safe." Quoting all of the statistics in the world is not going to persuade anyone who is not measuring their "safety" only according to their likelihood of being shot.

quote:
By contrast, many people do buy guns for safety. They explicitly choose to own a gun for home defense, or self-protection. Statistically, they are doing the wrong thing.
See, this is confusing to me. While I know most gun owners own guns for more than one reason, and most cite protection (though not necessarily self protection) as one of their major reasons, I don't understand why you're equating safety and protection. So, for example, many cops and military personnel would describe their jobs as involving some element of protection (of the public, US citizens, American ideals, whatever) but would not necessarily describe their jobs as involving safety or being safe.

quote:
It may well be true that there are individuals within the group of gun owners who are safer because they own a gun. The data does not exclude this possibility. If you are such a person, you giving up your gun does not improve your safety, nor does it improve the average safety of all people.

But it is impossible for this statement to be true of all gun-owners. For it to be true of you, you would have to be unusual.

The trap is that people tend to think that they are better than they really are (cf. the number of drivers who claim to be above average), and it is natural for a gun-owner to think that he or she is more disciplined with the gun than they really are.

The point is not that people who are safer with guns should sacrifice both the gun and their safety for the common good - the point is that most people who think that they are safer with a gun are wrong. This does not preclude the possibility that some of them are right.
I don't disagree with most of this, except with what seems to be a shifting definition of "safe." But perhaps it isn't shifting - perhaps you are referring to the likelihood of being shot throughout. Statistically speaking, I understand that most people who think they are safer (as in less likely to be shot) with guns are wrong (because in reality they are more likely to be shot than people without guns - although the reality is also that the vast majority of gun deaths are suicides, which rather throws off a lot of the arguments that seem so obvious to the anti-gun crowd).

But this argument is never going to be persuasive to people who are measuring safety in other ways (or who do not place an extremely high value on "safety" as opposed to protection or something else).
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, unless you're using the word "masturbate" in a way very different from how we use it in the UK, he was not posing a threat to your life as far as it's possible to judge from what you said (of course, if he was there with a gun clearly visible, if he was repeatedly trying to force the door open etc then that may be different). Equipping yourself to use lethal force in response to such situations looks incredibly disproportionate. Quite literally over-kill.
No, he was not posing a threat to my life. I agree that shooting him would have in fact been disproportionate, as it would not have qualified as self defense (at least not in the moral sense). But do you understand that a gun does not have to be fired in order to provide protection? And what would people in the anti-gun crowd (or who want to repeal the second amendment) recommend a person do in that situation? Because I've never heard of someone in that exact same situation, but I've heard numerous stories of people in similar situations. And for the most part it seems like the recommendation is to give up and die.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I don't disagree with most of this, except with what seems to be a shifting definition of "safe." But perhaps it isn't shifting - perhaps you are referring to the likelihood of being shot throughout.
When the argument is about having a gun to "be safer" then that sets the boundaries for the question "safe from what?". Owning a gun for protection only makes sense in relation to occasions when the use of lethal force could be justified - so, we're necessarily talking about being safer (or not) where a gun could potentially be used as protection from credible threats of death or significant injury. You wouldn't need a gun to protect you from a car accident. You wouldn't need a gun to protect against fraud, having someone snatch your phone on the street or simple burglary.

So, yes, it's primarily protection from being shot. With protection from being stabbed also relevant.

quote:
although the reality is also that the vast majority of gun deaths are suicides, which rather throws off a lot of the arguments that seem so obvious to the anti-gun crowd
Why the fuck does that throw off the arguments? Suicides are as tragic as any other death, same for attempted suicides. It is entirely reasonable for people to be concerned that access to guns makes suicide much easier, and being easier removes some of the time in which intervention may save a life.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And what would people in the anti-gun crowd (or who want to repeal the second amendment) recommend a person do in that situation? Because I've never heard of someone in that exact same situation, but I've heard numerous stories of people in similar situations. And for the most part it seems like the recommendation is to give up and die.
First, of course, the police and courts should be doing something. Issuing some form of anti-social behaviour charge, it's likely that provision of help for mental health issues would be needed. That may require community lobbying of politicians to get them to act to provide the police and courts the resources, and the instructions to act on these sort of issues, as well as to ensure that there are mental health services available (for everyone who needs them, not just those who wank in public).

It may also be necessary to gain further evidence, since the police may not be able to respond immediately to every such complaint. Get some photos, maybe install a CCTV system overlooking the door. Again, that may be a community action - a Neighbourhood Watch type of response.

Obviously we have similar sorts of people, doing similar things, in the UK. And, we deal with it without anyone even considering the use of weapons.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
There are far more accidental deaths caused by cars than there are by firearms. There are far more accidental injuries and deaths from car accidents among people who own cars than among people who don't. Children who live in car-owning households are more likely to be killed by a car than those who don't. And so on.
You do realise that there's such a thing as mandatory car insurance, don't you?

Well done. You've literally just made Alan's argument for him.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Suicides are as tragic as any other death
Really? Wow...
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Suicides are as tragic as any other death
Really? Wow...
And today's "Taken entirely out of context in an attempt to whip up faux-outrage" award goes too...

[drum roll]

romanlion!

Please step forward to receive the traditional prize of a hundred-weight of cow manure.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Re Saysay what?

Cars versus gun deaths. The total death statistic is misleading. The significant issue is the high number of gun deaths in America compared to other developed countries.

The self defence argument is an interesting one. I don't see news stories about your daily mass shootings being stopped by people shooting the shooters. Perhaps we're being fed stock news with the heroic stopping of mass shooting maniacs bumped aside?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Quoting all of the statistics in the world is not going to persuade anyone who is not measuring their "safety" only according to their likelihood of being shot.
"Shot" was a shorthand - the statistics are also true when you consider all kinds of assault and battery. But if what you mean is that you feel safer with a gun than without one, then we're not using the word in the same way.

"Safer" is an objective statement about probabilities. It means that you are less likely to be injured / injuries are likely to be less severe. Your feelings are your own - I can't tell you whether particular actions make you feel safer or more confident. But we can tell you whether those feelings are grounded in fact.

quote:
See, this is confusing to me. While I know most gun owners own guns for more than one reason, and most cite protection (though not necessarily self protection) as one of their major reasons, I don't understand why you're equating safety and protection.
Because they're the same. If you have a gun to protect yourself and your loved ones, the idea is that you (and they) are safer for you having it than if you didn't have it. Otherwise it's not doing a very good job of protection, is it?

Cops carry guns for their own protection, and for the protection of others. The idea is that this makes people safer than if they didn't have guns (both the cops themselves and the public they are protecting.) There is certainly some debate about how true this is, but the idea is that the armed cop is safer (both for him and the general public) than an unarmed cop trying to do the same job.

Similarly, the soldier carrying a rifle, helicopter, or main battle tank, causes more safety (for his side) than a soldier who was trying to go to battle with a placard.


quote:
I don't disagree with most of this, except with what seems to be a shifting definition of "safe." But perhaps it isn't shifting - perhaps you are referring to the likelihood of being shot throughout.
Shot, or otherwise the victim of some kind of assault, yes.

quote:
But this argument is never going to be persuasive to people who are measuring safety in other ways (or who do not place an extremely high value on "safety" as opposed to protection or something else).
I think that's a false dichotomy. Does it matter if you're killed by an intruder, or by the neighbor's small child? It sounds like you'd be happy to have let's say a 0.2% chance of accidentally getting shot rather than having a 0.1% chance of being a victim of a serious crime. And in that case, you're right - looking at the chance of a bad outcome isn't going to persuade you, because you're differentiating between injuries and deaths based on intent.

You're right that you don't have to fire a gun for it to work as protection - there is a deterrent effect. But you have to be prepared to fire. If you display a weapon and your assailant does not back down, you have to use the weapon.

[ 31. October 2017, 14:11: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I don't see news stories about your daily mass shootings being stopped by people shooting the shooters.
Which the gun nuts will say just proves we need more good guys with guns to protect us from the bad guys with guns.
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
This good guys/bad guys thing is simply wrong. It isn't reasonable to divide the world into two groups of people like that.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
This good guys/bad guys thing is simply wrong. It isn't reasonable to divide the world into two groups of people like that.
Who ever accused the gun nuts of being reasonable?
[Frown]
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
This good guys/bad guys thing is simply wrong. It isn't reasonable to divide the world into two groups of people like that.
Apart from being unreasonable, how are bystanders supposed to tell which are who?

A couple of years ago, I was on a hike (OK, actually just a walk; hiking days prob'ly behind me), and clambered up a stony slope to find myself faced with a couple of male strangers who had rifles and ammo slung across their backs and chests, "Constitutional" open carry-style.

There was a small group of other hikers (walkers) just ahead of them.

Here's what flashed through my head, in no particular order:

I almost fell clambering over that last rockfall. Are those rifles loaded? How safe could it be to climb over rocky terrain with a loaded rifle? (Granted they were decades younger than I am & looked fit.)

Are these guys part of that group ahead? "Protecting" them?

Are these guys planning to attack or rob that group ahead? Or me?

What are their intentions, exactly? Dare I hope they're just making a stupid fucking point about their stupid fucking right to cart stupid fucking guns around in plain sight, or should I be planning a quick zig-zag escape or should I promptly conceal myself behind a nearby bullet-stopping tree?

Because that's the basic problem: intentions are not necessarily visible. By the time bad intentions become apparent or visible, it's far too late to do anything about them.

On a wooded trail not known for violent uprisings in the generally quite peaceful White Mountains of New Hampshire, how do we tell "good guys" from "bad guys?"

As I am not aware that this pair ultimately attacked anyone or used their weaponry to threaten walkers or relieve them of cash, watches, and jewelry that day, am I supposed to assume they are "good guys?" If I assume this on this occasion, is it safe to assume the same on the next, or with a different pair?

All I know is that I did not feel particularly safe in their presence, and when the trail divided and I saw them take the easy way up, I opted for the somewhat longer, rockier one.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
OK, I'm a strong proponent of sensible gun laws - including the banning of sales of assault weapons and draconian restrictions on handguns. But what you've described, without being very descriptive of location or weapon type, is the one use of guns that makes reasonable sense: hunting.

It seems like a high probability that they were intending to go hunting or find a quiet spot for target practice. Carrying a rifle is just that, carrying a rifle - it's not a "style" when you're hiking through wilderness.

My stomping grounds back home in Canuckistan included a non-trivial population of Grizzly bears, and hiking without somebody in the group having a rifle can be sketchy. Let's not be unreasonable ourselves when discussing guns, so that we don't prevent the possibility of discussion at all.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
OK, I'm a strong proponent of sensible gun laws - including the banning of sales of assault weapons and draconian restrictions on handguns. But what you've described, without being very descriptive of location or weapon type, is the one use of guns that makes reasonable sense: hunting.

It seems like a high probability that they were intending to go hunting or find a quiet spot for target practice. Carrying a rifle is just that, carrying a rifle - it's not a "style" when you're hiking through wilderness.

My stomping grounds back home in Canuckistan included a non-trivial population of Grizzly bears, and hiking without somebody in the group having a rifle can be sketchy. Let's not be unreasonable ourselves when discussing guns, so that we don't prevent the possibility of discussion at all.
Nope. First, not hunting season when this occurred – early-mid-April IIRC -- not for fowl, deer, moose, bear or anything else; it was early spring (fishing season starts April 1, but I'm not aware (could be wrong) that NH Fish & Game allow the use of rifles in fishing fresh waters in any case; lead poisons loons, an endangered waterfowl).

I don't know what these guys were carrying, but they were bulkier than the weapon I used to bag a deer; the ammo slung around their chests looked like what you'd use in an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.

Second, marked trails intended for general-admission hiking in the White Mountain National Forest do not generally intersect with hunting areas. For obvious (I trust) reasons. We're a tiny rural state; "wilderness" areas below the Notches are generally too small to be out of earshot of major highways (at least for those with good hearing). Trails get crowded, idjits fail to wear blaze orange during hunting season, they're unlikely to wear it out-of-season, etc. etc.

Yes, rifles are needed for hunting. I've used them for this (long ago, once. Bagged a doe, one shot, became a vegetarian. Meat went to the state prison for the inmates.) Farmers need firearms (I've used them for varmints; prefer other means now.); hunters need firearms; folks living in the crowded down-&-out crime-ridden sections of our two largest cities (by out-of-state standards, small) might feel the need for a self-defense pistol at home (not that I agree, but then I don't live there).

Bears in "wilderness" are rare here. Why? When they emerge from their dens that time of year (early spring), they head for the suburbs and small towns where folks put their trash out and (against all advice) hang bird feeders, etc.

There's no need for a rifle out-of-season on a well-marked trail with heavy human traffic unless you're hunting humans, or making a stupid fucking point.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
I don't know what these guys were carrying, but they were bulkier than the weapon I used to bag a deer; the ammo slung around their chests looked like what you'd use in an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.
If the ammo was indeed slung on their chests, then it almost certainly was not for automatic or semi-automatic weapons - being as those weapons use clips of ammunition. However, belts of ammunition is the preferred method for carrying when using a bolt-action rifle - so that one can grab another round to load into the breech. Or, more likely, shotgunsą.

quote:
There's no need for a rifle out-of-season on a well-marked trail with heavy human traffic unless you're hunting humans, or making a stupid fucking point.
Or, perhaps target shooting? Because sometimes people are not assholes, even people with guns.

ą You know, the kind that vice presidents use to hunt humans.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I actually don't think waving a gun at someone masturbating on your porch is a legitimate use of a weapon. Is that really the go-to solution in America?

I think such behavior is along a continuum that leads eventually to the commission of serious sexual assaults. Our cops generally like to catch those guys earlier in the cycle of offending. There's less paperwork. Why would the cops have blown saysay off? My gut reaction is under-funding, but really what would I know? In any event, if I'm right about this behavior being indicative of a propensity to more and worse criminality, surely it is the police response which is at issue.

It strikes me that in the absence of a gun and police intervention, there are many ways in which a repeat performance by this fellow could be handled. However, most of my suggestions involve the guy not having a gun himself. While that is the very very likely situation in my area, where I'm pretty sure the cops would not blow you off, I think saysay lives in America.

Bad luck saysay. I'm sorry that you have to go through such an awful situation and that the police are not helping you.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Indeed, that sounds like a situation better handled by pepper spray.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
No, any solution which involves saysay opening the door while the guy is still on the porch is a bad idea. Solution is for the cops to show up and arrest him, and that is what I would expect the British police to do if I complained to them about something like that happening to me.

Sorry you are not getting support from your police force, saysay. [Votive]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Clearly we are missing the hilarious karmic value of capsaicin applied directly to the genitals of the perpetrator.

Sure, said hilarity could be from a police pepper spray. And if we want to get all snotty about what would be best, I'm guessing that having sufficient medical and psychological services or a society that invests more effort into mutual wellness might have prevented the stoop-stroking entirely.

The points being:
1) "It buuuuurrrns!" is amusing in context.
2) Still not a reasonable need for anyone to have a firearm.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
RooK:
quote:
1) "It buuuuurrrns!" is amusing in context.
Only if you are larger and stronger than the other person and can be reasonably certain that he will not take the can off you and beat you to death with it. Humour is a very personal thing, as Emperor Cartagia said when ordering the execution of his court fool.

Agree with your point two, though.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
If you have a letterbox, it'd be about crotch level, right? No need to open the door at all...
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you have a letterbox, it'd be about crotch level, right? No need to open the door at all...
American homes typically don't have those. Mail is delivered either to a box at the end of the driveway, or to a centrally-located collection of letterboxes for apartment complexes and the like.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you have a letterbox, it'd be about crotch level, right? No need to open the door at all...
American homes typically don't have those. Mail is delivered either to a box at the end of the driveway, or to a centrally-located collection of letterboxes for apartment complexes and the like.
Depends where you live. At my last house I had a mail slot in my door. I now have a mailbox mounted on an outside wall. Every place I've lived is different -- mailbox at the end of the driveway, cluster of mailboxes up the street, collect mail at post office...
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you have a letterbox, it'd be about crotch level, right? No need to open the door at all...
American homes typically don't have those. Mail is delivered either to a box at the end of the driveway, or to a centrally-located collection of letterboxes for apartment complexes and the like.
In suburbia/exurbia and rural areas, yes. In cities (esp. older cities) mail slots are pretty common, as are house-mounted mailboxes.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Without scrolling back, I’m here wondering how fucking guns and crotch level mail boxes have come to intersect in the Great Venn diagram of all things.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
In God's hands. [Votive]

What is going down in Texas?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41880511
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
According to this tweet, 27 dead is 4% of the small town's population.

The church has its own YouTube channel with previous services broadcast. The ordinariness of it makes this pretty grim to me. I could see myself in one of those pews.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
In God's hands. [Votive]

What is going down in Texas?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41880511
We're God's hands. Including the hands that held the machine gun.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
The pastor was out of town; his 14-year-old daughter is among the dead.

On October 8 his sermon included these words

quote:
We need to stop and remember that all things were created by Him and for Him before we start condemning and hurting others for our own convictions. There are some things we should speak out against, yet many of the things we condemn others for are really our own pet peeves, not God’s. Pray before you speak this season [I presume he's referring to Halloween] and let’s remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away.
I'll stand with that [Votive]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
No. Fuck that. And fuck the "it's all god's plan" intentional idiocy.

Gun laws are our responsibility. Our collective failure to enact sensible restrictions on specialized human-hunting implements needs to be vociferously spoken out against.

We need to admit our faults and weaknesses, and among them is a general vulnerability to lashing out thoughtlessly - even cruelly. Human nature and simple reasoning dictate that we need to be at least as mindful about easy-death-applicators as we are about vehicles or traveling on aircraft.

We're killing ourselves because we're too fucking stupid to avoid it. Like a diabetic binging on twinkies. Let's wake the fuck up, all of us.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Yep. At risk of serious opprobrium on a hell thread, I say "How long must we sing this song?"

On the issue of the masturbating doorstep guy, I think Jane R. is right to say that putting yourself in danger by opening the door is not the best way to go. I think it's 1) take a photo; 2) call the cops; 3) call a friend or relative close; 4) call a neighbor.

Using capsicum spray is funny, for sure. So is releasing your pet dog Cujo to slobber on the windows.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

Gun laws are our responsibility.
If only this were true, and we could actually change things.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
The Onion recycles the same article every time: "‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens."
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The despicable governor of Texas Greg Abbott has deplored the shooting and stated that if only the congregation had been heavily armed all would be well. I am not sure how many of the congregation would be looking at the door in the back during prayers. There's a significant fraction of us who talk to God while our eyes are closed. So clearly it's incumbent upon Texas preachers and pastors to tool up. A cassock-alb with a quick-draw armpit holster, anybody?
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
Fuck - just saw the Texas story. Fucking awful. Fucking guns.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
No. Fuck that. And fuck the "it's all god's plan" intentional idiocy.
I didn't say anything about the latter. As to the former, I didn't say nothing should be done. My observation was simply that this pastor's stance, before the fact, appeared to be anything but belligerent.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
I’m very sad for anyone affected this latest terrible gun tragedy, however indirect their association may be.

RooK, I found the following article very interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38365729
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
And of course 45 spouts that it's not the problem of guns, but the mental health problem the US have, 'like many other nations'...

Just heard that extract on BBC Radio 4 News, and had to turn it off. Words fail.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The irony of Trump saying that while in Japan - which as Yorick pointed out has an almost non-existent rate of gun crime and one of the worst suicide rates in the world (so, arguably has a pretty appalling record of mental health).
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The Onion recycles the same article every time: "‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens."
NewsThump has a similar reaction.

This story gets recycled too frequently too
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
From the current BBC News report, an illuminating remark from Generalissimo Gropo the Great:
quote:
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump, on a tour of Asia, said guns were not to blame for the shooting.

"We have a lot of mental health problems in our country, but this isn't a guns situation," he said.
WTF?

[Eek!]

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Oops, sorry - I see others have already picked up on Gropo's deep and sympathetic understanding of the situation.

Doubtless he will now cut short his Royal Progress, and return to Texas, to reassure the locals that the massacre was probably their own fault...

IJ
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
The man's a fucking twat. Before the bodies have cooled down he's saying how great it was that one of the locals was armed as otherwise "it could have been worse".

Look, you utter fuckwit, if the shooter hadn't been armed in the fucking first place it would have been a whole lot better

This is so fucking obvious that I wonder what weird psychology it requires to not see it. Other countries do not let people run around with automatic weaponry. Other countries do not have these regularly scheduled massacres. I know correlation does not equal causation, but you'd think looking at the correlation might be an idea, rather than just doing the simplistic "if I don't have a gun I can't shoot back" reasoning which seems as far as the NRA and the Orange Cockwomble are capable of going.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
Why, oh why are Americans so keen on shooting each other? [Frown]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Other countries do not let people run around with automatic weaponry. Other countries do not have these regularly scheduled massacres. I know correlation does not equal causation, but you'd think looking at the correlation might be an idea,
Well, quite.

I think some of the "thought" processes go something like:

1. We can't go round confiscating 300 million guns.

2. Therefore there will always be a lot of guns

3. Therefore criminals will have guns

4. So I want one

Driving a fleet of buses through this "logic" is left as an exercise for the reader.
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
Was watching the news last night as this was reported. My son asked if they knew yet who'd done it and if it was a terrorism-related incident. My response was that there'd been no comment so far on that, but that the perpetrator was probably a lone-wolf white male, as nobody was reporting that he was non-white, which they most certainly would have had that been the case. This was later confirmed by Trumpet when he mentioned mental health problems, which is, as we all know, code for a white male in shooting-reporting circles.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Mentally ill white dude carries legal gun into church murdering a few sinful Christians. Glad it wasn't a brown man from extreme vetting country whom the drones missed and ISIS claimed.

In other news, surge in gun buying reported. Because yawn.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
A few things we already knew are confirmed.

US gun laws are crap.

The POTUS is a fucking twat.

Sadly, this has been confirmed at the expense of the life of the Baptist pastor's 14 year old daughter and 4% of the popular of a small Texan town.

Will anyone deal with it?

No they fucking won't.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Ah, never mind - all is well, this isn’t a guns situation. .

No gun problem here, oh no. The 26 people just stopped breathing, is all. Move on, nothing to see.

Come on folks, buy more guns - you know how much they’re needed. The Texas governor is embarrassed at the low, low level of gun ownership in his state.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
On NPR today I heard that the gunman walked up to the church building and began firing through the walls and door. Then he went inside and fired some more.
Even if the entire congregation were armed, with their guns in their hands, there is nothing they could have done. Even if the pastor in the pulpit had an assault rifle propped up on the lectern, cocked and aimed, it would be impossible. To claim that arming people -more- is clearly mania.
The National Rifle Association is a terrorist organization.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The National Rifle Association is a terrorist organization.
[Overused]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Yes, but probably not made up of brown people of A Strange And Alien Faith, speaking funny languages....so no threat to anyone worth threatening, then.

IJ
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Isn't it about time we called these terrorist attacks? This is terrorism by any definition I would suggest. It is facilitated by a political lobby, the NRA, indeed as well said above, that makes it a terrorist organization.

Hoffman:

... terrorism is:
ineluctably political in aims and motives;

violent – or, equally important, threatens violence;
designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target;
conducted either by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) or by individuals or a small collection of individuals directly influenced, motivated, or inspired by the ideological aims or example of some existent terrorist movement and/or its leaders;
and
perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.

Bockstette:

Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of non-combatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states.

This state sponsored terrorism is knowingly perpetrated by the NRA to fulfil its ideal of fully armed Americans.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Although there's nothing legalistically illicit or clandestine about the NRA.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Although there's nothing legalistically illicit or clandestine about the NRA.
Letting hooligans loose with assault rifles doesn't have a lot to do with a "well-regulated militia".
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Perhaps not, but I think Martin makes a fair point.

Alas, to many Americans, 'terrorists' seem to be seen as brown people with funny names, a religion alien to the True American Gospel (i.e. worship of The Flag), and a fanatical desire to Destroy The American Way Of Life.

It would take something of a sea-change for those Americans to see their own Good Ol' White Boys as terrorists...

[Help]

IJ
 
Posted by Crśsos (# 238) on :
 
Blogger Tom Sullivan suggests a "Now Is Not the Time" clock to keep track of how long it's been since the latest mass shooting.

Given the rate at which these incidents occur (though only in America, for some reason [Roll Eyes] ) even if we only reset the clock after mass shootings (at least 3 people shot) which involve at least one fatality and assume we have to wait at least a week before it's "the time" to discuss gun violence, the only times in the past year where such a discussion could take place were February 5 and July 20. If we include mass shootings that "only" involve non-fatal injuries such a discussion could never take place, which one suspects is the whole point of "now is not the time".

Data source on American mass shootings.
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
It's not going to change.

After Sandy Hook, we decided that, actually, come to think of it, we can live with the deaths of 20 schoolchildren and six teachers. If you can live with that, well. You can just about live with anything.

At this point, it's Another Mass Shooting. Like Another 45 Outrage, or Another Traffic Jam, or Another Thing That Happens These Days, Donchaknow. It's like earthquakes in fracking zones or hurricanes growing more destructive. Nothing that can be done about it. People adapt. People accept. It's part of life now.

This weekend, I was monitoring a protest. The counterprotesters (about a hundred) showed up openly carrying guns. Handguns, rifles, AR-15's, you name it—openly carried on the streets. It's terrifying, yes, knowing that so many people have that kind of weaponry. Which is the point, I suppose, if you're a white nationalist—silence other views through a show of force (in the name of Freedom).

It's what we live with now. That's just how it is.

[ 06. November 2017, 15:51: Message edited by: Ariston ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
So the once-great America is now the country where, if you have a spat with your ma-in-law, you go to church.

And murder the congregation - babies and all.

IJ
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
... [the perpetrator] was probably a lone-wolf white male, as nobody was reporting that he was non-white, which they most certainly would have had that been the case ...
Those were my thoughts exactly, Passer. It seemed odd to me that (late last night) even when they had the killer's name, it took until this morning for them to publish his photograph.

And of course all that the idiot Trump can say is "thank God for the Good Guy With A Gun".

I won't be holding my breath for this shooting to be the one that makes my southerly neighbours do something about their gun regulations.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
No doubt, Piglet, you're thankful to be living in a civilised country. IIRC, these shooting sprees seem to be rare in Canada...

I wonder why that is?

IJ
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
No doubt, Piglet, you're thankful to be living in a civilised country. IIRC, these shooting sprees seem to be rare in Canada...

I wonder why that is?

IJ
America has more guns, more handguns, looser gun laws, more distrust in government and a 226 year old amendment regarding the right.

[ 06. November 2017, 17:20: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I'm not sure whether this video of Australian comedian Jim Jeffries has come up on this thread before, but it certainly sums up the issues (in suitably Hellish language).
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
[Overused]

(and the Hellish language just underlines his points....)

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is decidedly Hellish and deliciously cruel. Wayne LaPierre is the head of the National Rifle Association, and this is clearly a troll page.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Behaviour and attitude change requires some motivation or other. Something to have people think clearly that there is a problem, and it is worth doing something about. Clearly shootings of a few dozen people every few days doesn't signify a problem, or if it does, that there are too few guns rather than too many. If more people were killed, would this motivate change? I don't think so. I think it would reinforce the idea that more guns are needed.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
@Ariston, thank the Lord it was Texas, for one horrible moment I thought it was San Fransisco! There was an Antifa protest there Saturday night I believe.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Alas that it was necessary for the Post to publish this: helpful tips on what to do if you should be in an active shooter situation.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Alas that it was necessary for the Post to publish this: helpful tips on what to do if you should be in an active shooter situation.
That is seriously horrible. Here's another, your Department of Homeland Security (nitwit name, they seem pretty ineffective) has video game scenario thing, which is also seriously terrible. It's nice that the company which created it also trains soldiers to kill people.


If you want to learn to do a mass shooting, there's any number of video games you can buy it seems to help you learn how. Perhaps this is how one gets desensitized to actually commit mass murder? Here's an example link to a youtube video someone recorded of themselves playing a game called "Call of Duty Modern Warefare 2". There are thousands of these self-recorded video game sequences of people showing off how good they are at doing it. The shooting on this one starts just after 1:40 in with a massacre at airport security. The "mission" is to kill as many people in an airport as possible, maybe they can set the next one in Las Vegas at a concert or a Texas church? Basically training to be a mass murder shooter. I'd say NSFW but that's putting it mildly.

Anyone else support a complete ban? Of forget it. No point in even starting that discussion.
[brick wall]
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
FWIW, I've started a file on violent language.

Nobody just gets ill, undergoes treatment, and recovers any more; they "fight" and "battle" illness, and the "win" their war with it.

Just yesterday I came across an ad for insoles titled "Fight the Slip."

There's so much anger, violence, and hostility in our everyday usages. We're entranced with violence. I don't know why I'm surprised; we also live in eternal war.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
It's in to be in a war.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crśsos:
Data source on American mass shootings.
That is bloody frightening. Bloody frightening. I had heard stats on gun attacks, and suicide [!], but seeing them listed calmly on a website as if it were the telephone directory listing addresses...3 dead....1 dead...3 injured...

Then I stupidly clicked on Last 72 Hours. FFS.

I need to log off.
[Tear]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
If Texas were to now take the lead and enact the tiniest bit of gun control, that might *help* turn the gun control tide. And maybe a couple of other Southern states, and Idaho. (Just because they're known for gun culture.)

Sen. Ted Cruz (Republican, TX) said on "Nightline", when asked about gun control, that it doesn't help when the media always makes these things political.
[Roll Eyes]

However, given that the church shooter was shot and chased off by a neighbor with a gun (and another man), this may just reinforce the "good guys with guns" thing.

Like that incident in a convenience store in...Seattle(?) a few years back. Creep was attacking the clerk with a knife, IIRC. Customer had a gun, used it, and IIRC the creep died. Customer was totally shaken. Hadn't done anything like that before. But, as a Shipmate said at the time, that's exactly the kind of incident the pro-carry folks are talking about.

And after the first Colorado theater shooting, with the guy costumed as the Joker, gun sales there went up. I'm not sure what they thought they'd be able to accurately do in a darkened theater.

But I think that guns, other than maybe for hunting, are there to give owners a sense of control over their own destinies.

I don't remotely support this. But the idea that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun isn't 100% wrong...which means that people want to keep/buy guns, just in case.
[Frown]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
But the idea that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun isn't 100% wrong
No, it's just 99.99% wrong.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Yes, and it's that tiny fraction of times when it's accurate that pushes the rest of the times out of the minds of pro-carry folks.

It might be easier to shift the situation a bit if it never, ever worked at all.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
It might be easier to shift the situation a bit if it never, ever worked at all.
It might also help to highlight the times when it's gone terribly wrong. There must be a lot more times when the "good guy with a gun" accidentally shot someone by mistake - either mistaking someone for a "bad guy with a gun" or in opening fire misses his target and hits someone else. There is a constant stream of stories of supposedly well-trained cops shooting people in error, how many more examples of untrained civilians?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I don't think any of this works. As the video I linked to amply demonstrates, the desire ingrained in many Americans to carry guns and the fear of what will happen if the right to do so is curtailed are both fundamentally irrational.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Alan--

As with most things (electrical repair, deep-frying a turkey, canning, car repair, slicing bagels), people who proceed on their own tend to think they know what they're doing.

I've mentioned, on occasion, the gun accident prevention PSAs that were on TV when I was a kid, and how they educated me enough to prod some thoughtless grownups to be a little more careful. If there were new, national PSAs like that, aimed at both kids and grownups, about basic gun *safety*...they might not prevent things like church shootings, but they might at least prevent some actual accidents. Ideally, put out or endorsed by the NRA.

And, after a few years, if accidents went down, and no authorities hauled away Guns Rightly Owned By Good Decent Christian People, there might be a little more breathing room for pro-carry folks to agree with a tiny bit of regulation, to make things a tiny bit safer.

Faster change would be wonderful, if it worked. But it's unlikely, unless maybe survivors and grieving families of shootings managed to join together publicly, and tell their stories over and over. Though that might draw a target on *them*--physically, socially, conspiracy-theoretically. Some people believe the Sandy Hook shooting was fake and/or a set-up.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I think the film industry holds some blame, staring with the old cowboy films.

This picture of the ‘good guy with a gun’ saving the day comes straight from there imo.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Boogie--

Sure, and from TV, and old radio shows. You watch old Westerns, and guns are often the problem-solvers of choice. And retro TV stations are rerunning Westerns.

Ironically, the title character of one of the old favorites, "The Rifleman", said "Anytime you fire a gun, you've failed". (That's firing at a person.)

Other factors are our pioneer history, and our mythology (national, regional, local).
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Of course, in the old Westerns when the new Sheriff rode into town to restore order the first thing he did was get an ordnance passed so that everyone had to surrender their guns to him for the time they were in town. Which is exactly what the "right to carry" people are advocating (not).

Or, more recently, on the few occasions when guns made an appearance in Buffy her response was something along the lines of "these things never help".

It's called selective reasoning. Take the bits of history and culture that support your argument and ignore the rest. Something I'm as guilty of as anyone.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Alan--

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course, in the old Westerns when the new Sheriff rode into town to restore order the first thing he did was get an ordnance passed so that everyone had to surrender their guns to him for the time they were in town. Which is exactly what the "right to carry" people are advocating (not).
I think most of the Westerns I've watched were different from that, so we've seen different ones. Lots and lots of Westerns out there.

However, have you seen "Angel and the Badman"? Old favorite, and local retro station has been running it lately.

--SPOILERS--

John Wayne is Quirt Evans, an injured gunman who's taken in and tended by a Quaker family. Tug of war between their ways and his. Slow romance. Meanwhile, there's a sheriff from elsewhere who's doggedly pursued him for a long time, trying to catch him in something, etc., etc. Mentions he respects QE enough to hang him with a new rope, if the time comes.

Things build up, and QE has to make a choice which way to go, in the middle of a very dangerous situation. He leaves behind his gun and holster, and the sheriff said he was going to hang them on his office wall...with a new rope.

--end SPOILERS--


In the old "Kung Fu" TV series, with a renegade Chinese Shao-Lin priest in the Old West, Kwai Chang never uses a gun. He does use martial arts, as necessary, and strategy, and talking to people. And the reason he has to leave China is quite a chain of causes and effects of violence. A royal guard disrespects Master Po, Kwai Chang's teacher. Po, who happens to be blind, uses his staff to sweep the guard to the ground. The royal nephew, seeing from a nearby carriage, shoots Po. KC, in grief and rage, picks up the guard's spear, and throws it straight into the carriage, killing the royal nephew. Po dies; the fugitive KC has to leave the monastery and (eventually) China, and everything spills out from there.


quote:
Or, more recently, on the few occasions when guns made an appearance in Buffy her response was something along the lines of "these things never help".
Though B has Slayer super-strength, supernatural materials and magic, Giles and the Scoobies, and her Mr. Pointy sticks. Plus Angel and Spike.
[Biased]

quote:
It's called selective reasoning. Take the bits of history and culture that support your argument and ignore the rest. Something I'm as guilty of as anyone.
Yeah, we all do it. [Smile] I think it's a matter of where you *start* your reasoning, much of the time. Two people in the same situation may start at different places, according to what they value.

Ever try to untangle a mess of yarn? How did you do it? Lots of ways. Then there's Alexander the Great's sharp solution to the Gordian Knot.

Or working through a printed maze. Some people find it much easier to start at the end and work back. Takes the pressure off, I think.

FWIW.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think the film industry holds some blame, staring with the old cowboy films.

This picture of the ‘good guy with a gun’ saving the day comes straight from there imo.
Ah, I agree with that too.

What I see today in many, many, many US movies and series, even quite highbrow ones, is that at the end of the day, doing justice oneself - more often than not lethally - is somehow more honourable than letting institutional justice take its course.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
It's more subtle than that.

"Make my day punk" - "give me an excuse to kill you"

"Jokey" sign in a field - "Trespassers will be shot. Survivers will be shot again" - ha fucking ha.

Both are "I want to be able to kill someone and it be justified homicide".

It's a sickness. Too many macho sociopaths who'd just love the situation to arise where they get to kill someone. Killing people is seen as a solution to problems. The solution to muggers is to kill muggers. The solution to burglary is to kill burglars. Trump is threatening it. He thinks it makes him look big.

[ 07. November 2017, 11:04: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Both are "I want to be able to kill someone and it be justified homicide".
I've seen stats (sorry can't find them just now) stating something like 250 "justifiable homicides" per year in the US by private citizens with guns. It's the sort of number that gets wheeled out as examples of "good guys with guns". The problem is I've not seen a break down of what those are, and under what definition they are "justifiable". Do they include protection of property? Because, I don't think it's justified to kill someone to stop them nicking your TV. Do they include trespass, as in the "trespassers will be shot" signs, because being somewhere you shouldn't doesn't justify being shot. And so on. How many of those 250 deaths were of someone who was armed and clearly intent on harming someone else?

quote:
It's a sickness ... Killing people is seen as a solution to problems. ... Trump is threatening it. He thinks it makes him look big.
It's a sickness that affects others. I suppose if the people of the US want to accept a collective delusion that a "good guy with a gun" is a solution to anything they're entitled to do so, and pay the cost of 30,000 gun deaths a year as a consequence. But, that same philosophy affects US foreign policy, where the US government considers themselves to be the "good guy" with a massive military as "the gun". Then they need to pick some "bad guy" to defend the rest of us from and go stomping around the world picking wars to demonstrate how a "good nation with an arsenal of thermonuclear bombs" can take down the "bad guy". Problem is, it isn't any more successful as national foreign policy than it is domestically.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
There is such thing as "good guys with guns".
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
The question is whether a "good guy with a gun" is perceived as intrinsically better at the end of the day than "a democratic institution". The answer in the US appears to be a resounding "no".
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There is such thing as "good guys with guns".
Which is why I called it a delusion.

[ 07. November 2017, 12:27: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
@Ariston, thank the Lord it was Texas, for one horrible moment I thought it was San Fransisco! There was an Antifa protest there Saturday night I believe.
California wasn't left out. Only two people were killed in that church on Sunday, so it wasn't major news.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Only on Fox News could you get someone to assure us that it's better to get shot in a church. Apparently they believe it's more convenient for Him to pick you up there.

Filmmaker Michael Moore has posted:
"Ok, after hearing the history of the Texas gunman, I finally get it. Before you can buy a gun in the USA, you first can beat your wife numerous times and point a gun at her and be charged with 6 counts of domestic violence, then you can beat and kick her baby until you break his skull, then, after you've served a prison sentence for that violence, you can be court-martialed and removed from the military for “bad conduct,” and THEN, after ALL that, you can have an hour-long stand-off with police after you’ve clubbed your dog in the head - after which you are then arrested for animal cruelty — AND THEN AND ONLY THEN you can go out a legally buy the assault weapon of your choice! WHY DOESN’T ANY OTHER COUNTRY FOLLOW OUR FINE EXAMPLE?!"
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
We're talking about a population that props up a trillion dollar lottery "industry". Objectively reasoned extrapolation is not the strong suit of the average individual.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Brenda said:
quote:
Only on Fox News could you get someone to assure us that it's better to get shot in a church. Apparently they believe it's more convenient for Him to pick you up there.
Further proof, if needed, that the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[qb] Both are "I want to be able to kill someone and it be justified homicide".
I've seen stats (sorry can't find them just now) stating something like 250 "justifiable homicides" per year in the US by private citizens with guns. It's the sort of number that gets wheeled out as examples of "good guys with guns". The problem is I've not seen a break down of what those are, and under what definition they are "justifiable". Do they include protection of property? Because, I don't think it's justified to kill someone to stop them nicking your TV. Do they include trespass, as in the "trespassers will be shot" signs, because being somewhere you shouldn't doesn't justify being shot. And so on. How many of those 250 deaths were of someone who was armed and clearly intent on harming someone else?
Remembering what I learned in Social Studies, when it comes to justifiable use of force by police causing a death, justification only applies if the police officer has a reasonable expectation of imminent danger. Now I'm in Canada, so I don't know if American law is different, but trespassing under this definition doesn't fly. The only justification for killing someone is if they are going to kill you first.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I gather US law can be a bit laxer.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Mentally ill white dude carries legal gun into church murdering a few sinful Christians.
There isn't the slightest indication that this man had a diagnosed mental illness.

Neither was he a terrorist. Terrorists are working for political organizations. Calling this man a terrorist dignifies his actions. He wasn't killing for a cause.

He was a heinous, vile, ignorant, angry murderer who hated his mother-in-law and all her friends.

Republicans only care about mental illness when they're trying to deflect blame from the gun issue. Trump recently over-turned an Obama-era bill to keep mentally ill people from buying guns. If he succeeds in repealing Obama-care millions of mentally ill people will no longer get care. It will be tragic for them, but it wont really make a big difference in the number of gun deaths every year because most of those are perpetrated by, "sane," people.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

It's a sickness. Too many macho sociopaths who'd just love the situation to arise where they get to kill someone.
I know this is Hell, but this is an exaggeration. Are there such people? Yes, of course. But the fantasy is being the hero more than killing someone. It isn't a thought through philosophy, as much as it is this:

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
We're talking about a population that props up a trillion dollar lottery "industry". Objectively reasoned extrapolation is not the strong suit of the average individual.

 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Mentally ill white dude carries legal gun into church murdering a few sinful Christians.
There isn't the slightest indication that this man had a diagnosed mental illness.

Neither was he a terrorist. Terrorists are working for political organizations. Calling this man a terrorist dignifies his actions. He wasn't killing for a cause.

He was a heinous, vile, ignorant, angry murderer who hated his mother-in-law and all her friends.

Republicans only care about mental illness when they're trying to deflect blame from the gun issue. Trump recently over-turned an Obama-era bill to keep mentally ill people from buying guns. If he succeeds in repealing Obama-care millions of mentally ill people will no longer get care. It will be tragic for them, but it wont really make a big difference in the number of gun deaths every year because most of those are perpetrated by, "sane," people.
Nail head. Hammer. Contact.
With a caveat: Making it harder for the mentally ill and people with a history of violence to buy guns won't make a statistical difference in the number of American gun deaths.
However, those 26 Texans and their families would have been better off had Texas gun laws that approached reasonable.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
One would hope that a history of convicted violent offences would be sufficient cause to deny gun (or at least assault weapon) ownership - regardless of any definitively diagnosed mental illnesses.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
One would hope that a history of convicted violent offences would be sufficient cause to deny gun (or at least assault weapon) ownership - regardless of any definitively diagnosed mental illnesses.
It would also be nice if the Air Force had actually done their job and entered his domestic violence court-martial into a federal database which would have blocked him from buying the rifle (or at least made it more difficult).
[Mad]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Right, there was no need to suggest a mental illness. He should not have been able to buy guns based on his criminal history and if the Air Force hadn't made a mistake he wouldn't have been able to buy those guns.

Still, I doubt if that would have stopped him. People intent on murder usually don't have scruples about stealing.

I think the only answer to our gun problem is the sort of ban Australia has. All the gun "control" laws that try to keep guns from the bad guys, whether they be mentally ill or convicted felons are just distractions.

Look at some of our recent mass murders. Gun control laws wouldn't have kept the Las Vegas shooter from buying his guns, or the Sandy Hook shooter from using his mother's guns, or the Columbine shooters from getting an older friend to buy their guns, or the schizophrenic "Joker," who killed the people in the movie theater, from buying guns -- he hadn't been diagnoses yet.

Which points to the biggest problem with making psychiatrists report their patients to a gun control registry. It discourages the untreated mentally ill from seeking treatment while stigmatizing the ones who are getting treatment -- and mentally ill people who are taking their medication are actually less likely than the average person to commit a violent act.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

Still, I doubt if that would have stopped him. People intent on murder usually don't have scruples about stealing.
the average person to commit a violent act.
Yeah, but why make it even easier for them.

Actually, it just might in some cases. Not because they could not steal them, with the number of guns in American society that is hardly difficult. Hint: if you want to make it hard to steal guns make it difficult to own them with laws such as they need to be kept in a locked cabinet. This makes it technically harder and also reduces the pool of guns available for stealing.

Rather because they would decide that they wanted to own the weapon they used and if they did not own it they could not use it. Yeah, weird logic but humans who do this sort of thing are not exactly logical. I am always struck by the ritualistic element to it. The owning of weapons seems, to me, just another part of the ritual.

Jengie
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
I assume you are not allowed to bring weapons into the Capitol building or the White House.

If American politicians can be safe from the ravages of guns, why shouldn't ordinary American civilians.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I assume you are not allowed to bring weapons into the Capitol building or the White House.

If American politicians can be safe from the ravages of guns, why shouldn't ordinary American civilians.
On the federal level, correct.

State laws vary - some have no prohibition whatsoever, and many allow carry permit holders to carry on the Capitol grounds (MN is one).
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
You are in fact not allowed to carry weapons into the White House or the Capitol. But you will recall that the legislators are very very careful indeed to exempt themselves from all the laws they place upon us. Neither the employee regulations nor laws about abuse apply to them.
The National Rifle Association forbade the carrying of weapons into their national convention. If you put this into a novel, people would complain it was unbelievable.
From the Atlantic, an article summarizing why Congress is so limp on gun laws.

[ 07. November 2017, 18:45: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Brenda's link just confirms my take on it.

Sure, as Jengie says, any controls would be helpful, but the opposition has consistently looked at any sort of gun control as the thin end of the wedge that's going to take away their beloved guns.

They fight just as hard to keep "bump stocks," legal as they would against a total ban. So why not go for the total ban? We have been begging for scraps for too many years. They will not compromise in the slightest, so it's time to say to hell with all their whining pleas to keep their guns for hunting, or for their collections, or to feel safe when their screen door squeaks in the night. I'm fed up.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It will only happen if the greater mass of people who support control will phone those spineless congressmen.
I would suggest a more subtle way. It is to make the gun makers/owners liable for the damages they cause. Empower insurance providers to sell insurance. That immediately transfers the onus and regulation of guns to the insurance people. It is how cars have steadily become safer; not because anyone wants to pay for seat belts but because insurance companies insist on them.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I'm not convinced our sort of gun laws would work in the USA, if only because the penetration of weapons is so much deeper for you guys than it was for us in 1996. I think a crafted US solution is needed, but I appreciate that you're talking out of a place of anger Twilight, or at least I think you are.

On the film tangent, I have often thought that the hero saving the world/ fighting against the odds thing is unfortunate. Then I think that without such stories, we Westerners wouldn't be us. The story is ancient, with deep roots in our culture. One only has to mention The Odyssey or the norse sagas. Just don't mention any films.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I'm fed up, too.

But I suspect an all-out ban on guns would do far more harm than good:

--Most gun owners probably wouldn't turn in their guns, or not turn in all of them.

--The hardcore "the gov't is going to take us over, and the Founders were right that we periodically need a violent revolution" folks would have what they've been waiting for.

--The many folks who only have very mild concerns about the gov't maybe someday getting to that point will have their worst fears confirmed.

--Law enforcement officers (LEOs) knock on doors, asking if the resident might possibly have been too busy to drop off any guns they might have, and whether they'd let the LEOs take the guns away for them. (Alternatively, "bring us your guns, or we're gonna come in and search, and we don't need no stinkin' warrants".)

--A lot of folks, seeing only chaos, don't understand what's going on, and just want to keep themselves, their loved ones, and their property safe...and either get guns, or go totally off the grid somewhere.

--Civil war. Not just two sides, but all sorts of battles going on, all over the place, all the time.

What a world.
[Frown]
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
Some Americans have this weird fetish for the Founders, it's almost crazy to think that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et al should have any bearing on present day political issues.

If they supported a right to bear arms, who cares? They are dead and buried, and do not have any claim to the living.

The British do not invoke Churchill to solve their problems nor do the French involve Charles De Gaulle.

[ 07. November 2017, 22:01: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
No, the Brits invoke the spirit of WW2 though and past glories to inform present policies. The French certainly invoke their blood-soaked revolution to justify their tradition of protest.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
AB--

[Ultra confused]

Wow.

And what simontoad said.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A friend of mine of noted spiritual discernment posted:
"God has a message for Congress and the President of the United States regarding their ongoing thoughts and prayers:

When you extend your hands,
I'll hide my eyes from you.
Even when you pray for a long time,
I won't listen.
Your hands are stained with blood.
Wash! Be clean!
Remove your ugly deeds
from my sight.
Put an end to such evil;
learn to do good.
Seek justice:
help the oppressed;
defend the orphan;
plead for the widow.
(Isaiah 1:15-17)

Offer your "thoughts and prayers," but God isn't listening until you do something."
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Amen Brenda, amen.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I would suggest a more subtle way. It is to make the gun makers/owners liable for the damages they cause.
This information is also in the link I posted earlier to "Fully Loaded," but here is a more succinct reason why we cannot sue gun manufacturers.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There is such thing as "good guys with guns".
But when the bullets start flying they are indistinguishable from "bad guys with guns."
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
From Brenda's link:

' “It’s hard to envision a foolproof way to prevent individual outrages by evil people,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly said on Monday in Kentucky.'

This is Republican bullshit. We can't think of something foolproof, so we're not going to do anything at all. Look, who gives a fuck about foolproof? Give us something that might work say 75% of the time. That will still save lives.

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Remembering what I learned in Social Studies, when it comes to justifiable use of force by police causing a death, justification only applies if the police officer has a reasonable expectation of imminent danger.
In this country, judging by case law, "reasonable expectation of imminent danger" equals "he was black." We appear to have a surfeit of white-ass cops who shit their drawers whenever they see a young black man. And the rest of the cops protect them to the hilt because to turn traitor would guarantee them a permanent vacation without pay. The blue wall keeps young black men in danger of being killed at any traffic stop by Schrödinger's cop. Will I be a dead cat or a live cat? No way of knowing until I either drive away alive, or am shot because when I sneezed it looked like I was reaching for a rocket launcher.

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
mentally ill people who are taking their medication are actually less likely than the average person to commit a violent act.
They're probably less likely to buy a gun, too.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There is such thing as "good guys with guns".
But when the bullets start flying they are indistinguishable from "bad guys with guns."
...which is why I have a hard time understanding what the Colorado folks who bought guns after the theater shooting had in mind. (Other than that they were drowning in their own sheer terror.)

In a darkened theater, how do you (gen.) tell who the bad guy is? How do you accurately aim? And, when the cops come, how do *they* decide whether you're a good guy or a bad guy? They answer a report of an active shooter, walk in, and find you with a gun. Yeah, that's gonna go well.

Even moreso if the audience is mostly good guys with guns. Who are all trying to helpfully resolve the situation by shooting the shooter.

[ 08. November 2017, 00:40: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
I'm sure the fact that the "good guy with a gun" in Sutherland Springs shot the killer and made him run away will be of enormous comfort to the families of the 26 people who were already dead by the time he got there.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Meanwhile, in my state there are two bills floating through the legislature making it legal for preschool and daycare personnel to carry concealed firearms. And they just sent a no- vote- required recommendation to the state Department of Natural Resources to establish a hunting season for sandhill cranes. Sandhill cranes.

Arm every fucking person and shoot all the fucking things. Our new state motto.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Sandhill cranes are hunted in Saskatchewan and Manitoba with a daily limit of 5, 15 max in your possession.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Then Manitobans are equally insane.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Piglet--

I have no idea how the town felt about guns before, or feels about them now.

But what you said could feed the "see, you've got to have a gun on you at all time" litany.

The people who survived might be grateful for the neighbor's actions.

I saw him on TV. He said that God saved him (when?) and gave him those skills, so that he could help his neighbors in this situation.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Sandhill cranes are hunted in Saskatchewan and Manitoba with a daily limit of 5, 15 max in your possession.
Are they edible??? Or is this hunting for hunting's sake? Or are they deemed to be at invasive levels?

Thx.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
mousethief, "shit their drawers" gives me an image of someone sitting on an open (I have no idea what you call them) drawer taking a dump on his polo shirts.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Drawers is a rather quaint synonym for trousers (or pants, as we call them). "Drop your drawers," meaning let your trousers down, is another rather common colloquialism along with "shit your drawers," which of course means just what it says.

In a completely different context, we also use "drawers" for the compartments that pull out and push in on a desk or dresser.

[ 08. November 2017, 04:25: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Hmmmm...IME, "drawers" is a folksy euphemism for underpants, not trousers. FWIW.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There is such thing as "good guys with guns".
But when the bullets start flying they are indistinguishable from "bad guys with guns."
...which is why I have a hard time understanding what the Colorado folks who bought guns after the theater shooting had in mind. (Other than that they were drowning in their own sheer terror.)

In a darkened theater, how do you (gen.) tell who the bad guy is? How do you accurately aim? And, when the cops come, how do *they* decide whether you're a good guy or a bad guy? They answer a report of an active shooter, walk in, and find you with a gun. Yeah, that's gonna go well.

Even moreso if the audience is mostly good guys with guns. Who are all trying to helpfully resolve the situation by shooting the shooter.
Of course, darkness in a cinema would add to confusion, but the same applies everywhere.

Imagine you're in a shopping mall, at a sports event or wherever and there's report of an active shooter. You know there are cops on the way looking for someone with a gun. You expect there are some "good guys with guns" present also looking for someone with a gun. It would seem blindingly obvious that in that situation the most dangerous thing for you to do is get a gun out, making yourself look just like the person all those other people with guns are looking for. Dangerous for yourself and others nearby who will be at risk from poor aim and ricochet.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
simontoad:
quote:
No, the Brits invoke the spirit of WW2 though and past glories to inform present policies.
...yeah, and look how well that's going...
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Then Manitobans are equally insane.
Wildlife is very carefully managed here. With mild winters there's been a 30 year explosion of waterfowl populations. So many. Sandhill cranes are in two major North American groups. This hunted one is very stable. Also realize that indigenous people have treaty rights to eat traditionally including these birds. We also have far too many moose and deer. Please don't impose notions from areas where perhaps you have mismanaged wildlife populations. We're not insane, settlement suppressed prairie grass fires which created habitat. It's probably not as you think it is.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Hmmmm...IME, "drawers" is a folksy euphemism for underpants, not trousers. FWIW.
Correct. And "shit your drawers" means you have an irrational reaction due to fear.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Remember too how the Texas shooting went down. The shooter walked up to the church during services. He sprayed the outside of the building and the door. (His military-level weapon could easily punch a bullet through the walls and door.) Only then did he open the door and go in.
So: you're sitting in the pew. Behind you, through the wall, comes the bullets from the loon outside. Exactly what good is the gun in your hand going to do you? You could of course just start spraying fire everywhere. Should the pastor, up at the front behind the lectern, start shooting? At the walls? That's going to help the flock a lot.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, exactly. The whole thing is out of some nightmare movie.....except that it's real life (or, rather, real death).

The image of Gropo's 'Great America' that is emerging is truly horrific.

IJ
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
I'd like to know exactly how the shooters retreat went down, since Trump seems to think hundreds more would have died if the neighbor hadn't had a gun.

Was Kelley running toward his truck when the neighbor shot him?

If so, I imagine Kelley was going to do what most mass murderers do in these sort of scenarios, which is lead a police chase for awhile and then shoot themselves. Which is what Kelley did. He didn't die from the neighbor's shots to his leg but from his own shot to his head.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
How does a cop arriving on the scene distinguish the good shooter from the bad shooter?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
How does a cop arriving on the scene distinguish the good shooter from the bad shooter?
It helps if one of them is black.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
CBC News interviewed three gun owners from Sutherland Springs about gun control yesterday. Despite what happened, these gun owners were quite adamant that gun control is wrong. Their arguments:

1) Gun control doesn't work because the bad guys don't follow rules. My reply: By the same logic, you can argue that we can dispense with law altogether. The law against murder doesn't prevent "bad guys" from murdering people.

2) People kill each other using knives and trucks, doesn't mean we ban knives and trucks. Reply: Knives and trucks and cars have legitimate uses, apart from killing people. A gun is meant to kill.

3) We may need semi-automatic guns to protect ourselves. Reply: The US Military and police are there to protect you. If you support the military and police, you would let them do their job. Every other western democracy understands that for society to function, only the State has the legitimate use of violence or force.

If you reject the basic principle, then you reject the very basis of democratic society.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Was it all over when it became okay with shooting school children? Would a terror campaign against gun factories also confirm the need for more guns?
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
I assume gun control will only come if the Democrats win Congress, the White House, and pretty much sweep everything else.

2020?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Do you remember the last time? When Barack Obama was elected there was a froth of fury among NRA members. The persistent rumors circulated that Obama was going to Come And Take Our Gunz. Sales zoomed, ammunition was hoarded. Such a fury was whipped up that Obama could not move on gun control, even when children were gunned down in schools. It didn't help that he was a black man. The other persistent feature of gun mania in the US is that the guns are, mostly, owned and hoarded by white people. Second Amendment rights do not, mostly, pertain to black people; if you are a black man with a gun your life is in danger.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Reply: The US Military and police are there to protect you. If you support the military and police, you would let them do their job.
Apparently, the police have no duty to protect you.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Reply: The US Military and police are there to protect you. If you support the military and police, you would let them do their job.
Apparently, the police have no duty to protect you.
And the legal system (NOT a justice system, though sometimes called that) is a wreck. E.g., innocent people in prison, even executed. Money bail makes things worse for low-income/-asset folks. They don't have the resources to pay it, so they stay locked up (with all the horrors that happen in American jails and prisons) until trial--sometimes for a year or more. They can lose their families, homes, jobs, everything--without even being tried. (And yes, attempted change is in the works.)

There've got to be some decent cops out there, who--at the very least--try to find out who really did what, and arrest *that* person with the minimum force necessary. But, AIUI, they've also got to deal with the "thin, blue line" situation/mindset, where it's the Boys & Girls In Blue (uniforms) against everyone else; and they need to know that the cops around them will back them up in a dangerous situation; so they can't always speak up or stop bad situations.

And, sometimes, they get so they make fun of the general public. There was a situation here in SF, some years back, where one group of cops made a video, satirizing (too polite a word) the sorts of people they regularly met. Costumed officers (?) portrayed them. The video was leaked. Big fuss; "oh, it's just a harmless training video"; and IIRC not much in the way of consequences.

Some time later, they did it again.

Oh, and then there are the cops in Oakland, across the Bay, who patronized an under-aged sex worker, and kept patronizing her for years. That spilled out. Lots of fuss. IIRC, there was legal action; and she's out of the area, and living elsewhere. Though that case never seems to end.

Just some samples from real life.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Reply: The US Military and police are there to protect you. If you support the military and police, you would let them do their job.
Apparently, the police have no duty to protect you.
Especially from themselves. They'd rather kill the innocent than protect them from their own fear. In other words the main excuse, that they feared for THEIR lives, is no excuse.

[ 09. November 2017, 09:39: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A Lutheran minister of eye-watering stupidity opines about the Texas shooting. Jesus wept.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A Lutheran minister of eye-watering stupidity opines about the Texas shooting. Jesus wept.
Not just eye-watering stupid, but batshit crazy!
[Mad]
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
Well that was a WTF sort of thing. [Confused]

Does he want to be delivered from this world in such a manner, I wonder.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Isn't he the pastor who produced the Lutheran Satire cartoons? They were quite funny, and thought provoking......maybe he's had a brain transplant more recently?

IJ
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A Lutheran minister of eye-watering stupidity opines about the Texas shooting. Jesus wept.
No Jesus didn't weep. Let's shoot Jesus! That's what pastors like this do. Jesus lies on floor with a bullet in his head. Which is really wonderfully great because he's God etc. [Help]
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
Here's the original column in the Federalist:

When the Saints of First Baptist Church Were Murdered, God Was Answering Their Prayers
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
There are days where I get up, read something, and just want to crawl back into bed. It may be 12:50pm, but I just want to do that after reading that last article.

God I hope the relatives and friends of those murdered do not see this. A vain hope, perhaps.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Good freaking grief! Flip side of the kind of crap Pat Robertson says about bad things happening because God is punishing us for LGBT folks, etc.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Doesn't this so-called "pastor" realize the difference between "Dear Lord, let me live my days in anticipation of your calling me to the reward you have prepared" and "Dear Lord, let some loonie shoot me full of holes so I can be with you"?

Oy veh!
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
"Dear Lord, let some loonie shoot me full of holes so I can be with you"?

Oy veh!
I read the Prayers of the People at our late afternoon Eucharist yesterday. Darn -- I forgot to include that!
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Doesn't this so-called "pastor" realize the difference between "Dear Lord, let me live my days in anticipation of your calling me to the reward you have prepared" and "Dear Lord, let some loonie shoot me full of holes so I can be with you"?

Oy veh!
I wonder if that pastor were offered the choice, which he'd take? No, I lie. I don't wonder at all.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
Here's hoping that this guys God answers his prayers about himeself. People who try to manipulate Theodicy do look stupid.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
There's been another school shooting.

link here. [Frown]
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
You can't make this shit up: Responsible Gun Owner.

Can't even draw his gun without fucking shooting somebody by accident. No charges, he keeps his permit, and he plans to keep on carrying. The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of innocents.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

Can't even draw his gun without fucking shooting somebody by accident. No charges, he keeps his permit, and he plans to keep on carrying.
If, at my place of employment, there was a failure of safety protocols such that two people were injured by a dangerous piece of equipment, there would be a root cause / HPI investigation to determine what needs to be changed about procedures and technical measures to reduce the chance of a repeat accident, and probably I would have my certifications to operate the piece of machinery revoked and have to undergo retraining and requalification.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
You can't make this shit up: Responsible Gun Owner.

Can't even draw his gun without fucking shooting somebody by accident.
And in a church, no less! Certainly no rejoicing in heaven, I shouldn't imagine.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
You can't make this shit up: Responsible Gun Owner.

Can't even draw his gun without fucking shooting somebody by accident. No charges, he keeps his permit, and he plans to keep on carrying. The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of innocents.
There's two slightly better ends to this story. First, he could have killed his wife. Second, someone could have shot him after he shot his wife, not uttering the sentence "before I kill you, there's just one thing I want to know." Because no-one can answer it.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
You can't make this shit up: Responsible Gun Owner.

Can't even draw his gun without fucking shooting somebody by accident. No charges, he keeps his permit, and he plans to keep on carrying. The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of innocents.
Such a pretty little church, too!

At first I laughed at the absurdity and made allowances for the man being 83; but what the heck was the pastor thinking letting him pass the thing around? Who were the people stroking a gun during the service? And lastly, who was the gormless buffoon who hadn't had a chance to handle the gun when the other guys did so he actually asks the old timer to take it back out of his pocket? Could he not wait until the service was over?

Was there any time left for a service at all or was it just show and tell of the things they want for Christmas? Will it become a tradition to pass around their killing instruments during the passing of the peace?


The missus has three bullet holes in her now, two in the abdomen and one in her right forearm. She was sitting down (in her wheelchair) so we can hope the path through her abdomen was, as they say, "a flesh wound," but that bullet in her forearm has to be serious and may cause her to lose some of the use of her right hand.

I wonder if she was in favor of her man carrying his gun wherever he goes so he could protect her.

We're going to hear more and more of the, "It was an accident," excuse as idiots carry guns everywhere. When do people have a right to go to church with an expectation of not being shot and some sort of recourse if they are?
[Mad] [Killing me] [Mad] [Waterworks] [brick wall]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
...stroking a gun during the service?
I'm having a Freudian moment just now. Is this how the devil comes? (yes I meant that both ways)
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is a Facebook link but it should work. Have a look at the photograph he posted on Nov. 17. A church sign for our times.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
What caliber weapon would Jesus use?
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
Meanwhile France seems to have had a (second?) small depressed-cop rampage plus an increased number of suicides as they keep their guns off-duty.

Additional indirect victims of the terrorist attacks there
(mirror)
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is a Facebook link but it should work. Have a look at the photograph he posted on Nov. 17. A church sign for our times.
Any attempt at what? It could be read as "Welcome. If you try to enter you will be shot."
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
What caliber weapon would Jesus use?
Obviously the .45 ACP, in a Colt 1911 pistol - designed, of course, by John Moses Browning. It's obviously God's own favorite.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
At least he stayed and called 911.

[Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
At least he stayed and called 911.
Looks like manslaughter in the second degree under New York law. Should be probably 5 years in jail for the hunter. I'd mark it as aggravated manslaughter because of the clear failure to obtain positive target identification, and the willful choice to continue hunting after dusk, which is a legally imposed safety measure to prevent exactly this kind of thing.

But, of course, IANAL anywhere, let alone in New York.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Hunting deer with a pistol ??? A crock of s**t. The guy was out with his toy and just loosed off when he saw a blur/heard a sound.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
The pistol thing seems very weird to me, too. I thought the whole mind trip for hunters was to pretend they were pioneers out hunting to feed the family.

I do think, "No shooting after sunset," is too vague. Anyone who has ever been outside playing tennis or softball late in the day knows how your eyes keep adjusting for a long time before you realize it's grown dark. During hunting season the weather channel should announce cut off times every afternoon, visibility is going to vary with weather as well as time of sunset.

Poor lady. I heard of this happening when a woman was in her own back yard wearing white mittens that looked like a deer tale to the hunter.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Sheriff Joe Gerace told the Buffalo News that Jadlowski used a single-shot handgun permissible for deer hunting.

To me the crazy stupid thing is that he shot before identifying what he was shooting at.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Good grief.

Thanks for the link to the WP article. The woman who died sounds like a wonderful person. And her poor husband.

Shooting, after sunset? At something 200 yards away? From his backyard? What, he was overcome by a sudden craving for venison?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Hunting with a handgun on a residential street. Deer, people all fun to kill. [brick wall]
 
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :
 
It's not guns that scare me, it's that there are too many idiots like this guy that own them.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
At least he stayed and called 911.
Looks like manslaughter in the second degree under New York law. Should be probably 5 years in jail for the hunter. I'd mark it as aggravated manslaughter because of the clear failure to obtain positive target identification, and the willful choice to continue hunting after dusk, which is a legally imposed safety measure to prevent exactly this kind of thing.

But, of course, IANAL anywhere, let alone in New York.
My reading of the WP article referenced by Ruth was that he might not be charged with anything, except maybe for shooting after sunset.

As horrifying and stupid as the man's actions were, he did call 911 and personally put pressure on the wound while waiting.

So I think I would grant him some mercy, depending on what charges were brought. And bar him from ever owning or using a gun again, and from hunting of any kind.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
He might not be charged with anything, except maybe for shooting after sunset. . . . I think I would grant him some mercy, depending on what charges were brought. And bar him from ever owning or using a gun again, and from hunting of any kind.
Should bring consolation and closure to the grieving husband, wouldn't you think? **NOT!** I hope the husband has retained a good lawyer.

[ 25. November 2017, 10:20: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
It was clearly an accident. He didn't mean to shoot the woman.

It is, however, only the kind of accident you can have when you have a gun.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It is, however, only the kind of accident you can have when you have a gun.
Especially when you have a gun without the proper training needed to handle it properly. I know I know nothing about hunting, it being something that has never had any attraction to me. But, whenever it comes up on a TV programme, and it's quite common on the countryside programmes that I watch quite regularly, there is a very strong message of the aim of the hunter to make a quick clean kill, a single shot that's an instant kill so that the deer, or whatever, suffers minimal pain. How you can make such a shot in failing light, let alone with a hand gun rather than a rifle, is something I don't understand. Surely the first lesson on "how to hunt" (whether that's a formal training course or what your pa taught you as a child) would be to make sure you have the right weapon and can clearly see your target.

An accident, quite clearly. But, if you drive recklessly and kill someone with your car you face appropriate charges of causing death by dangerous driving. And, in some cases a charge of manslaughter would be appropriate. There must surely be some equivalent set of criminal charges that can be filed against someone who recklessly discharges a firearm, especially if that causes death of injury.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It is, however, only the kind of accident you can have when you have a gun.
Especially when you have a gun without the proper training needed to handle it properly.
Oh, deary me no.

Those who've been through weeks of training - combat training - with handguns and rifles and machine guns still have accidental or negligent discharges. They can be experienced soldiers or firearm-equipped law enforcement, and have previously used their weapons in a wide variety of scenarios, and yet, due to malfunction or a moment's inattention, end up with a live round up the pipe when they shouldn't, or someone wanders onto the range, or the map reference is wrong, or all manner of blunders.

Bang.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I never said that proper training means that accidents never happen. I would expect that accidents would be less frequent with proper training. And, instruction in how to hunt would at least mean that people know a hand gun isn't the right tool for the job and this particular accident would never have happened. With the knowledge that in failing light you can't clearly identify your target and a clean kill shot is very much harder, a hunter will have put away their gun and headed home. It's the nature of a sport like hunting or fishing that there are days when you just don't get anything, and you know when it's time to call it a day and try again another day.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I never said that proper training means that accidents never happen. I would expect that accidents would be less frequent with proper training.
No, no, no.

Accidents are more likely due to the training. The more training exercises that happen, the more opportunity there is to have an accident, and the more people die. No training, no deaths (at least from accidents while training).

The best place for a gun is locked in a cabinet, and its ammunition locked in a separate cabinet. The moment you bring the gun and its ammunition together, the chances of an accident have gone from zero to non-trivial. The more you train with it, the higher the cumulative chance of having a fatal accident with it.

I've once used a firearm. In the thirty years since, my chance of fatally injuring someone with a firearm has been none. My non-training is far safer than someone else's meticulous drills.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It was clearly an accident. He didn't mean to shoot the woman.
If I read the article linked to above correctly, (1) the shooter was at home, not out hunting; (2) he saw something in his back yard; (3) in the failing light he thought it was a deer (not sure, just looks like one); (4) oh goody, he thought, let's shoot it -- no good reason to, I'm not out hunting, it's just something I can easily kill and so I shall; (5) guess what? It wasn't a deer, it was a woman.

Accident my foot! It was a deliberate attempt to kill something just because it was moving in his back yard. Who cares what it was? Deer? Maybe. Human being? Well, surprise, surprise!

I have nothing but contempt for this individual. No pity.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It was clearly an accident. He didn't mean to shoot the woman.
Agreed that he had no intent to injure the woman. That's what makes it second degree manslaughter rather than first degree or murder.

Because he did intentionally discharge his weapon with reckless disregard for public safety: he shot, in the twilight, at something that he couldn't clearly see in the hope that it might be a deer.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Accidents are more likely due to the training.[..]The more you train with it, the higher the cumulative chance of having a fatal accident with it.
You're both right, and I think you know it [Biased]

Doc is correct that every time the weapon comes out, there is a non-zero chance of an accident.

Alan is correct that a trained, experienced individual has much less chance per usage of having an accident.

Guns are not different from any other dangerous activity in this context.

Assuming that you're going to perform the dangerous activity anyway, your total risk of accident is reduced by controlled training and practice, even though some of the practice carries a non-zero chance of accident.

And regardless of how well trained you are, you always want to minimize your exposure to potential accident scenarios.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I never said that proper training means that accidents never happen. I would expect that accidents would be less frequent with proper training.
No, no, no.

Accidents are more likely due to the training. The more training exercises that happen, the more opportunity there is to have an accident, and the more people die. No training, no deaths (at least from accidents while training).
Indeed, 'tis why the military have decided to forego training. And why people do not train for driving.
People buy weapons for their use when necessary/desired. If such an event occurs, lack of training significantly raises the possibility of injury to a non-intended party
Also, training isn't only in actual use, but in when and how and education in the risks.
The safest option in gun ownership is to forego it completely. Barring that, training in the use and safety is far better than buying one and locking it way forthwith.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re "shooting in his backyard":

AIUI, there's an open field out beyond both backyards. That's where the neighbor woman was, walking her dogs.

The shooter was in his backyard. I don't know about his place, but American backyards generally aren't huge. If an actual deer had wandered into his backyard, he probably would've been able to identify it, even at that time of day--by its outline, if nothing else.

But he shot at something 200 yds. away, in that field. If he was able to see much of anything at all, which I doubt, you'd think that he'd at least be able to tell that his target wasn't the general size and shape of a deer. Unless maybe the neighbor wore a brown suede jacket?

I wonder if he was under the influence of anything.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
The influence of the NRA, undoubtedly.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Quite possibly, though not all gun owners are in the NRA. It just shouts very loudly.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There must surely be some equivalent set of criminal charges that can be filed against someone who recklessly discharges a firearm, especially if that causes death of injury.
I don't know what laws NY has. But, around here, I think you can get in trouble for firing a gun into the air as a sign of celebration (e.g., New Year's, etc.; probably a substitute for fireworks). Because the bullet comes back down, somewhere...

Rather like the older kind of lawn darts, with a metal tip. There've been horrible accidents--lethal, IIRC. They're periodically banned, then brought back. Not sure of their current status.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
You dont generally shoot deer at 200 yards [i]with a rifle[/url]. Most at 50 or 60. The shooter is an idiot, a murderous idiot.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I wonder if he was under the influence of anything.
Testosterone
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

The shooter was in his backyard. I don't know about his place, but American backyards generally aren't huge. If an actual deer had wandered into his backyard, he probably would've been able to identify it, even at that time of day--by its outline, if nothing else.

But he shot at something 200 yds. away, in that field. If he was able to see much of anything at all, which I doubt, you'd think that he'd at least be able to tell that his target wasn't the general size and shape of a deer. Unless maybe the neighbor wore a brown suede jacket?
Long-range pistol shooting is a thing, so is hunting with one.
Two hundred yards is two American football fields in distance. At that distance at sunset (and after), anything will be small and not easily identified, especially in long grass or brush. So that he was not able to properly identify what he saw is understandable.
That he shot anyway is not acceptable.

quote:

I wonder if he was under the influence of anything.
Hunters shoot things that are not their prey all the time without need of any drug to haze their perceptions.
Were I forced to guess, I would say that the man had seen deer in that area previously. Still not an excuse.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I would also hazard a guess that his neighbour, and probably several others in the area, had walked her dog there far, far more times than deer had wandered that close to human settlement. And, been seen far more frequently.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would also hazard a guess that his neighbour, and probably several others in the area, had walked her dog there far, far more times than deer had wandered that close to human settlement. And, been seen far more frequently.
Very likely true. I am making no excuses for the shooting, just working out the circumstances.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am making no excuses for the shooting, just working out the circumstances.
Ditto.

I raised the possibility of shooting under the influence because this is such a horrible--and, by accounts--stupid thing. And mixing gun use with drink/drugs fits that profile. Though if the shooter was able to move quickly enough to get to the woman, call 911, and put pressure on her wound, he'd seem to have had at least a modicum of physical balance and common sense.

One other possible factor: some gardeners consider deer pests, due to chewed up gardens. People take various actions to deter them--high chain-link fences, hanging out clothing that's stinky with human sweat, etc. If he thinks of deer that way, then *might* have some right to kill a deer *in his yard*, but not 200 yds. away.
 
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :
 
But the question still comes down to why did he shoot before verifying what he was shooting - especially since he knew his neighbor walked her dog every night. Manslaughter charges should be filed.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It's Dec. 1 so in theory you all have a new batch of free Post clicks. This is what we have come to: the police offer a training session to ministers about what to do in case of an attack. Among the suggestions -- throw a hymnal at the shooter.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
... throw a hymnal at the shooter.
Does it specify which one? [Devil]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
The large print edition, presumably.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
... throw a hymnal at the shooter.
Does it specify which one? [Devil]
Hope it's a lone gunman so you don't need to choose.

Though, if members of your congregation get out guns that'll just spoil everything as hymnals fly everywhere.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Stabbing them in the leg with that little pencil that's in the pew racks is also offered. This is where knitting in the pews would do us all good. I could undertake to skewer a grown man right through the brisket with a long straight steel needle.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Stabbing them in the leg with that little pencil that's in the pew racks is also offered.
I've never actually seen one of them with a point on it. But I guess you could give the gunman quite a bruise with it.

I prefer the hymnal throwing -- you can keep further away. Maybe churches could keep stacks of worn-out, outdated hymnals for this purpose.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
... Maybe churches could keep stacks of worn-out, outdated hymnals for this purpose.
Or better yet, messed-about-with modern ones.

I'll see myself out. [Devil]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Saw, in passing, that the not-a-deer shooter is being charged with 2nd degree manslaughter.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Among the suggestions -- throw a hymnal at the shooter.
I just thought of another concern. Old Mrs. (or Mr.) Jones fussing "Don't throw that hymnal! My grandmother gave that hymnal in memory of her beloved cat!"
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Only in Arizona -- specifically, only in Phoenix.
quote:
Officers later learned that the man got into an argument with a woman and opened fire at her when she was in a vehicle. The man then accidentally discharged a round into his leg while attempting to hang onto the vehicle as the woman drove off. He was transported to a local hospital in an unknown condition. The relationship between the man and woman is currently unknown.
I'll bet they're no longer friends, though.
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
We have a very cool event on the first Saturday in December every year in midtown Detroit. It was this past Saturday. And some idiot 16-year-old (who was arrested either this morning or last night - there was a search at first) closed it down by bringing his gun to an argument with a teenage girl. He shot 4 people; thankfully no one died. But the whole event was shut down. I trust it'll be back as usual next year, but with a stronger police presence.

I'm really glad no self-ordained "good guy with a gun" decided to jump into the fray.

In Detroit, we have a lot of shootings, but mostly between people who know each other, or drive-bys where an innocent person gets hurt by bullets meant for someone else. It's bad enough when that happens in the neighborhoods; but bringing a gun into a heavily crowded event and then pulling it out and using it over a spat? Fucking moron. Injured four teenagers and ruined the night for thousands of people who went from reveling and enjoying concerts and other events to being stuck in a huge clusterfuck of traffic with police lights flashing everywhere, a helicopter with a searchlight flying overhead, and police searching people's cars.

Even when a shooting "only" injures 4 people (and we don't know of other injuries that may have resulted from all the panic and rushing through crowds and closing down venues), it still always hurts a community.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
How dreadfully sad.

Clearly America is not yet Great again.... [Disappointed]

(In all fairness, it could happen elsewhere, of course, but I'm afraid it's the US of A which seems to be taking the biscuit at the moment).

IJ
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I know from other sources that there was a school-shooting at one of our US Shipmates's work-places. I won't name them as it's better they tell the story themselves, if they feel able to ...

[Frown]

Mercifully, no-one was killed in this very recent incident but two students are critically injured.

[Votive]

It's a sorry state of affairs.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Quite able. I mentioned it in All Saints. Technically speaking it was not a school shooting, as the students were not on campus, but ran back to campus to seek help after they were shot. It was apparently the result of an altercation between two groups of people, one of which included (or was comprised of) students from our school, and one of which did not.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
{{{{{{{mt and all affected}}}}}}}

[Votive]
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
MT - [Votive]

As a school staff member, I can't imagine the trauma this brings to your whole community. Hang in there.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
(I know this is Hell, but do we know if mousethief, his colleagues, and students are all OK? And if the injured students are out of danger?)

IJ
 
Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
(I know this is Hell, but do we know if mousethief, his colleagues, and students are all OK? And if the injured students are out of danger?)

IJ
Not sure of this is MT's situation but this is from an hour ago...
Aztec NM shooting
 
Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :
 
Oops, missed edit window. Not MT's situation but yet another fucking school shooting.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
(I know this is Hell, but do we know if mousethief, his colleagues, and students are all OK? And if the injured students are out of danger?)

IJ
The victims are expected to fully recover. I'm fine. There habe been am unusual number of absences the last 2 days since the incident. They have brought in extra counselors for people who want to talk about it, but that's about the extent of it. I expect if this had taken place on campus, things would be a lot more tense.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Thanks for the update - glad to hear it.

IJ
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
(I know this is Hell, but do we know if mousethief, his colleagues, and students are all OK? And if the injured students are out of danger?)

IJ
The victims are expected to fully recover. I'm fine. There habe been am unusual number of absences the last 2 days since the incident. They have brought in extra counselors for people who want to talk about it, but that's about the extent of it. I expect if this had taken place on campus, things would be a lot more tense.
So unHellish but, Thank you Jesus. Glad you're doing ok.

AFZ

p.s. FUCKING GUNS!
I wrote on Facebook recently the following:
Remember: guns don't kill, people do.
Coz a guy with a stick shouting 'bang' is just a deadly as the one with a semi-automatic rifle...
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
Reminds me of Eddie Izzard's very apposite quote:
quote:
They say that 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people.' Well I think the gun helps. If you just stood there and yelled BANG, I don't think you'd kill too many people.

 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Like the Eddie Izzard quote. Surely the aphorism should be: guns don't kill people; people with guns kill people.

Kind of seems obvious.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
But, sadly, not to many Usanians* (and others, of course).

*With all due respect, should that perhaps be Insanians ?

To many of us on this side of the pond, Usanian gun laws do indeed look madder than the maddest thing ever produced by the publishers of Madtown University Press.

IJ
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
But, sadly, not to many Usanians* (and others, of course).

*With all due respect, should that perhaps be Insanians ?

To many of us on this side of the pond, Usanian gun laws do indeed look madder than the maddest thing ever produced by the publishers of Madtown University Press.

IJ
To many of us here, they do, too.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
But, sadly, not to many Usanians* (and others, of course).

*With all due respect, should that perhaps be Insanians ?

To many of us on this side of the pond, Usanian gun laws do indeed look madder than the maddest thing ever produced by the publishers of Madtown University Press.

IJ
To many of us here, they do, too.
Amen, churchgeek!
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Like the Eddie Izzard quote. Surely the aphorism should be: guns don't kill people; people with guns kill people.

Kind of seems obvious.
I like Rob Delany's quote
quote:
Guns don’t kill people. People who say “Guns don’t kill people” kill people. With guns.

 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Like the Eddie Izzard quote. Surely the aphorism should be: guns don't kill people; people with guns kill people.

Kind of seems obvious.
Follow that logic to it's natural conclusion and surely the aphorism should be: hands don't kill people, people with hands kill people.

Guns, cars, knives, bats, bombs, planes and the like all requiring them...and hands of course needing no implement for the task...
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, it'd have taken a good while for the Las Vegas shooter to throttle all those people to death ..
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Can I ask a question, romanlion?

Where you born stupid or did you become that way?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Follow that logic to it's natural conclusion and surely the aphorism should be: hands don't kill people, people with hands kill people.
Or in your case, the hand you're not using to wank with.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally trolled by romanlion:
[wanking sounds]
I give that troll a 2.5. Below even romanlion's usually poor standard. The usual lack of logic or insight, but without even any hint of style or panache.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
Because quoting Rob Delaney is so clever and stylish?

[Disappointed]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Like the Eddie Izzard quote. Surely the aphorism should be: guns don't kill people; people with guns kill people.

Kind of seems obvious.
Follow that logic to it's natural conclusion and surely the aphorism should be: hands don't kill people, people with hands kill people.

Guns, cars, knives, bats, bombs, planes and the like all requiring them...and hands of course needing no implement for the task...
You claim to be following logic. And you are. It's just that you didn't marry it with an ounce of practical sense.

Yes, okay, wet lettuces don't kill people. People with wet lettuces kill people. Or at least they try to. Very slowly. While their victims just stand there asking why.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Like the Eddie Izzard quote. Surely the aphorism should be: guns don't kill people; people with guns kill people.

Kind of seems obvious.
Follow that logic to it's natural conclusion and surely the aphorism should be: hands don't kill people, people with hands kill people.

Guns, cars, knives, bats, bombs, planes and the like all requiring them...and hands of course needing no implement for the task...
You claim to be following logic. And you are. It's just that you didn't marry it with an ounce of practical sense.

Yes, okay, wet lettuces don't kill people. People with wet lettuces kill people. Or at least they try to. Very slowly. While their victims just stand there asking why.
Unless there are statistics on wet lettuce murders, that would be a false equivalence.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Do have statistics on mass murders by people using just their hands?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Do have statistics on mass murders by people using just their hands?
I don't, but I also don't recall posting anything about "mass" murders.

In a technical sense Jonestown come to mind though...
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Unless there are statistics on wet lettuce murders, that would be a false equivalence.
There are statistics on all kinds of things. The number of people that die on the toilet. The number of people killed by ladders. I'm sure we can find one on vegetables.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It's a thread about mass murders. If you're going to make comments totally irrelevant to the thread topic you need to flag that clearly.

And, Jonestown was murder using just hands and cyanide. Ooops, that "and cyanide" means it wasn't just hands was it. Numpty.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
The problem with cyanide is it's not widely available.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
If only the early leaders of the USA had seen fit to provide that militias had the right to bear poison.

EDIT: You do have to wonder, though, what the "guns don't kill people" crowd think the whole point of the 2nd amendment was. I mean, if guns don't actually help with defeating your enemies, why did the militias need them? Why not just threaten your enemies with your bare hands?

So we have the ludicrous situation where people think it's terribly important to be able to bear arms (ignoring the militia part utterly these days), and yet insist that these arms won't actually harm people. They're just for decoration, or something.

That's it. The 2nd Amendment was passed so that folks could look impressive, and possibly compensate for inadequate sexual function.

[ 10. December 2017, 00:08: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Adding to our growing list [Tear] :

"Father kills gunman who threatened his children inside Popeye's in San Antonio" (Dallas News).

Went about the way you'd think. Besides our usual questions, why wouldn't an armed robber in Texas consider that their victim might be armed, too?

But, then, given the location and how he went about it, maybe he wasn't thinking clearly. (Let alone commiting armed robbery at all.)
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Adding to our growing list [Tear] :

"Father kills gunman who threatened his children inside Popeye's in San Antonio" (Dallas News).

Went about the way you'd think.
Oh dear, GK...perhaps you haven't heard? I would refer you to the sage instruction 3 posts up...

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's a thread about mass murders. If you're going to make comments totally irrelevant to the thread topic you need to flag that clearly.
Dead guys that deserved it are for another thread, thank you very much.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Because quoting Rob Delaney is so clever and stylish?

[Disappointed]
If clever or style were criteria for posting here, you'd have been banned whilst registering.
Guns kill people is a perfectly succinct and sufficient way of saying that the presence of guns means more dead people, innocent included.
But as the "Guns don't kill people, people do" morons don't appear to comprehend this, cleverly phrased critiques of their idiotic attempt at aphorism are fun.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...EDIT: You do have to wonder, though, what the "guns don't kill people" crowd think the whole point of the 2nd amendment was. I mean, if guns don't actually help with defeating your enemies, why did the militias need them?
That is a beautiful point.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Because quoting Rob Delaney is so clever and stylish?

[Disappointed]
I know you are, but what am I? I know you are, but what am I? I know you are, but what am I?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
This just in. Woman pleads guilty to killing boyfriend in YouTube stunt.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
The story says she will be barred from owning a gun for life. How long until the NRA fights that in court?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Random link from that page: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/teen-shot-dead-while-delivering-tribune-other-newspapers-was-working-to-buy-his-sister-a -gift/ar-BBH0q9t

Could happen anywhere. Happens rather a lot there though, going by the article.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The story says she will be barred from owning a gun for life. How long until the NRA fights that in court?
I'd expect any normal person who has accidentally shot someone to not want to see a gun ever again, let alone own one.

Though, whether "normal person" applies to someone who decides to fire a gun at someone else for a stunt is another question. If it had been a Mythbusters "an Encyclopedia stops a bullet" you know they'd be firing at poor Buster the dummy.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The story says she will be barred from owning a gun for life. How long until the NRA fights that in court?
Not likely. She pled guilty to a felony, which automatically bars her from owning firearms per federal law. The argument to remove that would upend the "bad guys vs. good guys" narrative the NRA has been selling for all these years.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'd expect any normal person who has accidentally shot someone to not want to see a gun ever again, let alone own one.
I suspect that this might be a function of your feelings about guns, though.

Consider someone who has accidentally run someone down in a car. I would certainly expect them to be a bit apprehensive about getting behind the wheel again, but I'd expect that the average person in that position would resume driving, because they consider cars to be a necessity of modern life.

So for someone who considers guns a normal or necessary part of life, I'd expect them, after similar apprehensive feelings when they first handle their guns after the accident, go back to their normal shooting habits.

quote:

Though, whether "normal person" applies to someone who decides to fire a gun at someone else for a stunt is another question. If it had been a Mythbusters "an Encyclopedia stops a bullet" you know they'd be firing at poor Buster the dummy.
Not to mention that there are entire websites devoted to testing the penetrating power of various combinations of gun and ammunition, and that the gun used in this "stunt" was more akin to a pocket cannon than a peashooter. But we've already established that the heroes of this stunt aren't very bright.

[ 21. December 2017, 14:20: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Meanwhile, here in gun-loving Phoenix, a teenage boy playing with a gun accidently shot and killed his friend.

How long, O Lord, how long?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The story says she will be barred from owning a gun for life. How long until the NRA fights that in court?
Not likely. She pled guilty to a felony, which automatically bars her from owning firearms per federal law. The argument to remove that would upend the "bad guys vs. good guys" narrative the NRA has been selling for all these years.
Ahem.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Everyone knows that shooting a political candidate is more efficient than defeating him at the polls.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'd expect any normal person who has accidentally shot someone to not want to see a gun ever again, let alone own one.
I suspect that this might be a function of your feelings about guns, though.

Consider someone who has accidentally run someone down in a car. I would certainly expect them to be a bit apprehensive about getting behind the wheel again, but I'd expect that the average person in that position would resume driving, because they consider cars to be a necessity of modern life.
Quite possibly true. Though, if someone causes death or injury with a car through their own fault (a conviction for dangerous driving, driving without due care etc) then they'll probably not have a choice as they'll have an extensive, or life time, ban from driving.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The story says she will be barred from owning a gun for life. How long until the NRA fights that in court?
Not likely. She pled guilty to a felony, which automatically bars her from owning firearms per federal law. The argument to remove that would upend the "bad guys vs. good guys" narrative the NRA has been selling for all these years.
Ahem.
I stand corrected. Wow. That's a new level of hypocrisy, even for that slimebag...
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
***HOLIDAY PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT***


"Gun Safety during the Holidays: Ask to keep your children safe!" (Moms Rising).
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Do you know if they have an organisation for Dads with a similar name GK? [Two face]
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
"Gun Safety during the Holidays: Ask to keep your children safe!" (Moms Rising).
Quote from the linked article:
quote:
Her parents agreed to lock up all of their guns while their grandchildren were in the house
**All** of them? Good grief!
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Can't recall where I read this (and so cannot link), but came across an article in a mainstream publication claiming that 1 in 3 US households have guns on the premises, and that households with guns owned an average of 3 each.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Searching for a holiday gun safety article was both enlightening and disappointing. IIRC, it used to be an annual thing. I tried more than one search engine, with a variety of terms. Lots of hits; but few with actual instructions. Leaned more towards ads for gun safes, occasional horror stories, and a couple of opinion pieces. There are some videos at news sites, but I didn't watch them.

Anyway, that was the best I found.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Why would there need to be an emphasis on gun safety for the holidays? Is it really that much better that the guns are safely stored over Christmas if the children stumble across them when they visit in January? Gun safety is an all year round, 24/7 issue. Guns should always be kept as safe as can be (which since it's designed to be dangerous is never entirely safe). Of course, the safest is no gun at all.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why would there need to be an emphasis on gun safety for the holidays? Is it really that much better that the guns are safely stored over Christmas if the children stumble across them when they visit in January?
You miss the point, perhaps due to pondial differences. The grandkids don't visit in January. For many Americans, Christmas is the one time a year when the whole family gets together. Especially when Grandma lives on the other coast, a 6-hour, multi-hundred-dollar plane ride away.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Also because Christmas typically involves gifts. I've just seen commercials on TV for two different local gunstores, advertising their wares as gifts. One in particular claims to offer a "fun, family-friendly" atmosphere.

It doesn't hurt to remind the clueless nephew you've just bestowed a shotgun on that safety is important too.

[ 23. December 2017, 13:18: Message edited by: Ohher ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
A gun for Christmas? Celebrate the beginning of a life with a tool to end someone else’s. 🤮
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
In the real spirit of Christmas, let's talk about Satan, who as far as I know, led the first successful revolution, and by doing so won his own kingdom. Maybe it's time to start giving away guns to the homeless. My thoughts are that it's kind of like the saying: "give a person a fish and they eat for a day, teach them to fish and they eat for a lifetime".
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A gun for Christmas? Celebrate the beginning of a life with a tool to end someone else’s. 🤮
Of course. This is the US of A, with that noted, sainted Christian evangelical president in charge, where all the women vie for Miss Amerrika titles, all the men are taking names and kicking ass, and all the nephews receiving weapons for Christmas are clueless, probably because those begetting them are clueless too.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Build a person on fire they'll be warm for a day;
set a person on fire they'll be warm for the rest of their life.
 
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :
 
<Terry Pratchett>
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
That is horrible, Rook

And yes, I laughed [Hot and Hormonal] [Roll Eyes]

I am relieved that my clueless nephew does like guns.

Huia
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Also because Christmas typically involves gifts. I've just seen commercials on TV for two different local gunstores, advertising their wares as gifts. One in particular claims to offer a "fun, family-friendly" atmosphere.

It doesn't hurt to remind the clueless nephew you've just bestowed a shotgun on that safety is important too.
And do NOT give ammunition with the gun. That'll prevent immediate accidents, and give the kid's parents a chance to decide whether they're really ok with the kid having a real gun.

I saw online something about the NRA (?) having a gun education/safety course for kids that *doesn't* involve shooting. I didn't follow it up. But whether it's "stay away from guns, and tell grownups if you find one"*, "here's how to tell if the safety is on", "don't ever point a gun at a person", "always assume a gun is loaded", "don't *play* with a gun, especially inside", or how to take a gun apart**, it's maybe a start.

*Possibly unlikely from the NRA.

**Which might dispel some of the magical thinking and allure.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A gun for Christmas? Celebrate the beginning of a life with a tool to end someone else’s. 🤮
There's a modern-classic Christmas film about a boy getting a deeply-desired BB gun for Christmas. Haven't seen it.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Locking up your guns, all the time they're not in use, is one of those nasty freedom-restricting Australian laws we introduced.

Yes, that's right, one of the freedoms we deprive gun owners of is the freedom to be utterly careless about leaving weapons where the kiddies can play with them. We're such authoritarian bastards.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
I confess to shock when I saw the first commercials for gun stores and also for shooting ranges on my local news channel.

They're not allowed to show commercials for cigarettes. They're not allowed to air images of people actually imbibing alcoholic beverages on TV.

But by all means, let's advertise "fun, family-friendly" guns.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around that phrase.
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
I am relieved that my clueless nephew does like guns.

Huia
That should read doesn't like guns - maybe he's not so clueless.

Huia
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
... "fun, family-friendly" guns.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around that phrase.
Absolutely. Oxymoron of the year.

Having said that, giving a gun as a Christmas present* without ammunition would probably elicit the same sort of tantrum as giving a games-console without the batteries.

* I really had trouble actually typing that - it's such a complete anathema.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
"Gun Safety during the Holidays: Ask to keep your children safe!" (Moms Rising).
Quote from the linked article:
quote:
Her parents agreed to lock up all of their guns while their grandchildren were in the house
**All** of them? Good grief!
And she found that gun in a drawer, when she was looking for pain reliever. Did her parents hide the pills in their dresser, where they kept that gun? Or was the gun in a drawer in the kitchen or bathroom, where pain relievers are usually kept?
[Eek!]
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Locking up your guns, all the time they're not in use, is one of those nasty freedom-restricting Australian laws we introduced.

Yes, that's right, one of the freedoms we deprive gun owners of is the freedom to be utterly careless about leaving weapons where the kiddies can play with them. We're such authoritarian bastards.
But look out - the kiwis are coming [Snigger]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Be afraid...be very afraid.
[Paranoid] [Biased]

Of course, kiwis don't fly, do they? So I guess we don't have to worry about them up here!
[Biased]
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
Are we mounting an invasion Zappa?

I bags one of the big, bright plastic guns you get from the Warehouse - not so much a water pistol, as a water sub-machine gun. I was going to buy one for the cat down the road for Christmas. [Two face]

Actually there are so many Kiwis over there anyway I doubt anyone would notice if we did.

Huia
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:

Actually there are so many Kiwis over there anyway I doubt anyone would notice if we did.
Not sure if it still holds...
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Be afraid...be very afraid.
[Paranoid] [Biased]

Of course, kiwis don't fly, do they? So I guess we don't have to worry about them up here!
[Biased]
mwahaha!
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
(Though, given the nature of this thread) ...
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Be afraid...be very afraid.
[Paranoid] [Biased]

Of course, kiwis don't fly, do they? So I guess we don't have to worry about them up here!
[Biased]
I hear they paddle a mean canoe.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I hear they paddle a mean canoe.
Better than paddling a mean gnu.

[Razz]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I hear they paddle a mean canoe.
Better than paddling a mean gnu.
I dunno. That sounds pretty kink.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
[...] I bags one of the big, bright plastic guns you get from the Warehouse - not so much a water pistol, as a water sub-machine gun. I was going to buy one for the cat down the road for Christmas. [Two face] [...]

Huia
That's a nice and thoughtful gift for a feline, Huia. - However, I am slightly doubtful as to how the cat will use it. Does it come with instructions? And: can the cat read them?
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
US Army war simulator modified to prepare teachers for school shootings

quote:
The United States Army has developed a computer-based simulator that can train everyone from teachers to first responders on how to react to an active shooter scenario.

The Enhanced Dynamic Geo-Social Environment (EDGE) was originally designed to keep soldiers safe in a war situation, but is now being adapted for schools.
How on earth did we get to this for schools and potential teacher training? Or am I living in a fantasy world and this is the new reality?

But then, I think, if it helps save a life... It doesn't seem the gun situation is going to change short-term.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
I just got an all-church e-mail preparing us for a new procedure starting Sunday. As soon as the service begins all the doors will be locked. This is in response to a suggestion from one of our members who took an "Active Shooter," class.

The only statistic I could find on the odds of being shot in church said it was 1 in 6,552,000 or 0.00000015.

I can't go along with the "if it saves one life," thing because that sort of number has to offset the mental stress of the other 6 billion or so sitting in church feeling unwelcoming and paranoid. We're safest from church shootings if we don't go at all, but I don't think that's a good trade off.

The real risk that is escalated by this new rule is that one of the candles is going to set our pastor's robe on fire and as we all rush forward to help her we will forget to unlock the door for the medics and firemen.

The man who made the suggestion is a gun loving Republican and if he starts bringing his gun to church to protect me, I'll be stopping home.

[ 19. January 2018, 14:30: Message edited by: Twilight ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:


The man who made the suggestion is a gun loving Republican and if he starts bringing his gun to church to protect me, I'll be stopping home.
I hope so. I'm sure the roads are more dangerous than being locked in a church with even the most well-meaning gun-nut.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Errr, so the freedom to bare arms has now in the process of removing the freedom of worshiping God in an unlocked building.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Twilight, was this decision made by your church council (or equivalent) in consultation with the congregation?

If not, it seems your church is a dictatorship, and staying at home (or worshipping elsewhere, if possible) is by far the better option.

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
Quite possibly true. Though, if someone causes death or injury with a car through their own fault (a conviction for dangerous driving, driving without due care etc) then they'll probably not have a choice as they'll have an extensive, or life time, ban from driving.
A much more appropriate take on the 'when you fall from the high trapeze, get straight back up there' school of gun toting.

I was a Royal Navy Marksman and we had it drilled into us that we should NEVER point, (even an unloaded), gun at ANYBODY unless we expressly intended to KILL THEM.

I have therefore little sympathy with either of the two imbeciles involved in the absolutely predictable 'death by moronic misadventure' of making a video of someone deliberately risking death by gunshot to the chest.

The idiot receiver of the bullet was fully deserving of a Darwin Award for services to mankind by preventing his genes entering the worldwide gene pool and thus reducing the average IQ. Unfortunately his girl friend still poses a threat, unless she responsibly remains celibate or gets herself sterilized.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
Quite possibly true. Though, if someone causes death or injury with a car through their own fault (a conviction for dangerous driving, driving without due care etc) then they'll probably not have a choice as they'll have an extensive, or life time, ban from driving.
A much more appropriate take on the 'when you fall from the high trapeze, get straight back up there' school of gun toting.

I was a Royal Navy Marksman and we had it drilled into us that we should NEVER point, (even an unloaded), gun at ANYBODY unless we expressly intended to KILL THEM.

Especially an unloaded gun. They are the most dangerous. How can you tell from the outside that a gun is unloaded?
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
Errr, so the freedom to bare arms is now in the process of removing the freedom of worshiping God in an unlocked building.
Few are aware of the fact that if the church concerned were CofE in the UK and the service was a Wedding, it would be illegal to shut and lock the doors and further more the legality of the marriage could later possibly be successfully challenged as a result of the possible prevention of objections.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
Errr, so the freedom to bare arms is now in the process of removing the freedom of worshiping God in an unlocked building.
Few are aware of the fact that if the church concerned were CofE in the UK and the service was a Wedding, it would be illegal to shut and lock the doors and further more the legality of the marriage could later possibly be successfully challenged as a result of the possible prevention of objections.
I don't think church doors should be locked, but that is a stupid reason to not do it.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Errr, so the freedom to bare arms has now in the process of removing the freedom of worshiping God in an unlocked building.
Well, I have heard of some conservative churches where women are required to wear clothing that has sleeves...
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
I don't think church doors should be locked, but that is a stupid reason to not do it.
Nothing stupid about it at all. The Law of the land requires that anyone shall be able to raise legitimate objection to two people being joined in matrimony. Locked doors would prevent such objections thus rendering the proceedings suspect.

The reason is valid right up until the call has been made for "any just cause or impediment to the joining together in matrimony of these two people, to state their case now, or forever remain silent."
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
I don't think church doors should be locked, but that is a stupid reason to not do it.
Nothing stupid about it at all. The Law of the land requires that anyone shall be able to raise legitimate objection to two people being joined in matrimony. Locked doors would prevent such objections thus rendering the proceedings suspect.

The reason is valid right up until the call has been made for "any just cause or impediment to the joining together in matrimony of these two people, to state their case now, or forever remain silent."
It is a stupid holdover from the days of horses and feet being the primary modes of transportation and the spreading of information. There is no reason in the modern era to have such a ridiculous law.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I just got an all-church e-mail preparing us for a new procedure starting Sunday. As soon as the service begins all the doors will be locked. This is in response to a suggestion from one of our members who took an "Active Shooter," class.

The only statistic I could find on the odds of being shot in church said it was 1 in 6,552,000 or 0.00000015.

I can't go along with the "if it saves one life," thing because that sort of number has to offset the mental stress of the other 6 billion or so sitting in church feeling unwelcoming and paranoid. We're safest from church shootings if we don't go at all, but I don't think that's a good trade off.

The real risk that is escalated by this new rule is that one of the candles is going to set our pastor's robe on fire and as we all rush forward to help her we will forget to unlock the door for the medics and firemen.

The man who made the suggestion is a gun loving Republican and if he starts bringing his gun to church to protect me, I'll be stopping home.
But what happens if the madman with a gun is, inside the church and you are all locked in with him?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is a stupid holdover from the days of horses and feet being the primary modes of transportation and the spreading of information. There is no reason in the modern era to have such a ridiculous law.
Do you recognise the irony of that in the context of a thread that only exists because a sizeable number of people see nothing ridiculous about a Constitutional Amendment from the days when a musket was state of the art in weaponry.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
But what happens if the madman with a gun is inside the church and you are all locked in with him?
I assume that the doors would be locked so that people could not enter*, but that they could be opened from the inside. Most doors on public buildings are required to work this way because of fires. But at any rate, if I were determined to shoot a church full of people, I'd be sure to arrive before the service started. If you're going this route, why not install metal detectors and search all bags before letting people in?

*At my church about 1/4 of the congregation wanders in after the service has started, so I guess they'd be locked out as well.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
If they're having a wedding and you want to object I submit to you that your relationship with the bride or groom has already passed beyond repair. Besides, you can phone into the church with your cell.

Locking the church doors is especially moronic considering the power of modern assault rifles (which you can buy anywhere, no worries). They have the power to punch a bullet right through a brick wall or a church door, and of course the windows are simply asking for carnage. The criminal simply stands in the parking lot and sprays your building with fire; the worshipers pass from prayer to Heaven without even noticing.

If you really want to worship without these fears, locking the doors is picayune. You need to start constructing a nice worship bunker, earth-sheltered, bombproof, and windowless.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is a stupid holdover from the days of horses and feet being the primary modes of transportation and the spreading of information. There is no reason in the modern era to have such a ridiculous law.
Do you recognise the irony of that in the context of a thread that only exists because a sizeable number of people see nothing ridiculous about a Constitutional Amendment from the days when a musket was state of the art in weaponry.
I think it shares the same stupidity if not the same consequence. It would only be ironic, BTW, if I thought America's gun laws were rational.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Errr, so the freedom to bare arms has now in the process of removing the freedom of worshiping God in an unlocked building.
Well, I have heard of some conservative churches where women are required to wear clothing that has sleeves...
H'mmm, thanks for bearing out my nagging suspicion that I'd got the wrong bare.
How could I have forgotten the "armed Bear".
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
If they're having a wedding and you want to object I submit to you that your relationship with the bride or groom has already passed beyond repair. Besides, you can phone into the church with your cell.
No you can't phone in. Ridiculous! For one thing everyone should have their cell phones switched off, PARTICULARLY the minister officiating. For another, anyone lodging an objection, (say on the grounds of bigamy, incest, etc). has to present the evidence in person, WHILE the congregation waits for a decision on whether the wedding should continue or be postponed. That decision is the Minister's to make.

If the doors are locked, such evidence and witnesses would be unable to access proceedings. Hence The Law of the land on the issue.

On the other hand, I cannot imagine a wedding just proceeding ahead oblivious of someone hammering on the door of the church loudly demanding entrance, can you?
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
The other point to make is that objecting to a wedding has nothing directly to do with relationship with the bride or groom. It's a matter of having cause or just (i.e. legal) impediment, i.e. a legal reason why the marriage cannot go ahead. Either you have that or you don't. If you don't, a broken relationship with the parties will not change that.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
On the other hand, I cannot imagine a wedding just proceeding ahead oblivious of someone hammering on the door of the church loudly demanding entrance, can you?
Only in a movie.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
Oh yes! I hadn't thought of that. That was a case where he had no legal grounds for objection though, I think.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
But what happens if the madman with a gun is, inside the church and you are all locked in with him?
I think that's exactly the scenario Twilight is describing...
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I assume that the doors would be locked so that people could not enter*, but that they could be opened from the inside. Most doors on public buildings are required to work this way because of fires. But at any rate, if I were determined to shoot a church full of people, I'd be sure to arrive before the service started. If you're going this route, why not install metal detectors and search all bags before letting people in?

*At my church about 1/4 of the congregation wanders in after the service has started, so I guess they'd be locked out as well.
Pigwidgeon is right on all counts, as is Doc Tor as I do fear the Republican with the gun and a fresh dose of "Active Shooter" training in his blood.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It's also perfectly easy to find a grenade launcher. Locking the door, pooh.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
It's also perfectly easy to find a grenade launcher. Locking the door, pooh.
In the USA, only too true.

What kind of church is it that has a congregation that 'seeks to save their lives', Matt.16:25, Mk 8:35, Lk. 9:24,17:33, by 'locking the doors of the church' Jn. 20:19.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, quite.

Leaving aside the question of weddings, AFAIK Church of England services are public events, which anyone may attend if they so choose.

I'm not sure how illegal locking the doors would be, once Divine Service had begun, but it would certainly be undesirable. As at Pigwidgeon's church, a fair proportion of our little flock turns up anywhen up to (or even after) the Gospel...

IJ
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
A new school shooting, in Kentucky. 19 injured, two dead. Not even worthy of remark any more. [Mad]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
At least it has been reported on BBC news, though yes, seemingly becoming a commonplace event.

[Mad] but [Votive] anyway.

IJ
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
From the BBC report
quote:
Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell took to the Senate floor to send "prayers of comfort and healing to students, faculty, and staff and everyone affected by this violence".
I think they're getting lazy, rather than write a new article each time this happens they just use a set template and insert the name of the town and number of kids needlessly mown down at the altar of government stupidity and inertia, and prayers of comfort and support not backed up by any action to address the problem.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
No doubt the good Senator meant what he said, but what is all this about 'sending prayers' to those affected by such tragedies?

Curious theology, as prayer is supposed to be addressed to God, isn't it?

I think it is as Alan implies - they simply don't know how to answer the questions their lawless gun culture raises.

IJ
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
No doubt the good Senator meant what he said, but what is all this about 'sending prayers' to those affected by such tragedies?

Curious theology, as prayer is supposed to be addressed to God, isn't it?

I think it is as Alan implies - they simply don't know how to answer the questions their lawless gun culture raises.

IJ
Honestly, their wallets speak louder than bullets. Not dismissing the cognitive disconnect with the "guns make us safer" crowd, but the lawmakers are ensnared by NRA lobbying which is beholden to gun manufacturers.
Nothing is changing until that changes.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It's long odds that the speaker isn't praying anyway. At the very most, perhaps, he has a staffer do it. Do you believe it, when the president says he's offering prayers for whoever the latest victims are? Or do you assume that the speechwriter wrote that, and he's just reading it aloud off of the teleprompter?

It's completely formulaic, of no spiritual meaning at all. You might as well look for real religious emotion from a spoon.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Yes, there does seem to be something formulaic about such phrases.

Whilst I'm willing to give those who say these things the benefit of the doubt, I fear Brenda is probably right.

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
I cannot comprehend that a Government would focus the fear of its citizens on immigrants while its own citizens are regularly perpetrators of atrocities like this.

When will they ever learn?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It's completely formulaic, of no spiritual meaning at all. You might as well look for real religious emotion from a spoon.
There is no spoon.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
You need not use a Post click on this, since the headline says it all: the Virginia state senate passes a bill allowing guns to be carried in churches. The governor has promised to veto it, thank God. Dingbat Republican reps insist that they are needed to defend against church shootings. The law does allow individual churches to ban guns from the premises individually, but a sensible churchgoer points out that churches do not want this baby to be passed to them. “Trying to decide whether you pass the collection plate from the left side or the right side is oftentimes an issue of controversy,” he said. “We’ve got plenty of issues already.”
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
From that link, some sensible words from the Governor:
quote:
The Governor is ready to work with the General Assembly to promote responsible gun ownership, but he does not believe more guns in more locations is a solution to the real problem of gun violence
A voice of sanity in a howling wilderness of lunacy?

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
He is the moderate who was elected by a huge plurality in Virginia, roundly defeating a GOP ideologue. The Republicans still have control of the legislature and so can ram through nutty legislation, but the governor can veto it.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, good luck to him then, as I guess he really needs it!

IJ
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Nothing to do with guns, but the parish church in Dover used to have the doors locked for midnight services around Christmas and New Year. More to do with being a port town and the availability of booze. But locked they were, by tradition.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I think I may have told, somewhere, about the Episcopal church in suburban Virginia where I applied for an office job. It's in a very nice upscale neighborhood. The rector took me for a tour of the facility. They kept the church doors locked except during the services. They used to leave them open, 24-7, until that night when a drunk man came in with a rifle and pumped a number of rounds into the big cross over the altar. You can still see the bullets, they're quite visible from the pews. After that they decided that a lock was a good idea.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The NRA has a solution to school shootings. There's an obvious extension of that proposal to keep people safe in church as well.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Simples!

And the same could go for shootings in shopping centres, theatres, you name it - just close down the whole bloody WORLD!

Except for the rifle ranges, of course.

IJ
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The NRA has a solution to school shootings. There's an obvious extension of that proposal to keep people safe in church as well.
Uh, I think your satire meter may need recalibrating... [Biased]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I rather thought Alan's satire meter was in excellent working order.... [Two face]

IJ
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Note to Alan: Don't worry; Batsy* DeVos is hard at work on that task.

*Obviously, she doesn't know how to spell her real name.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
As happens in more than half of all school shootings, this boy used his parent's gun.

Still, the NRA keeps telling us that all we need to do is utilize the existing gun laws to keep "bad guys," from getting guns and all will be well.

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Back in the 1930's, a worker on my Great-Grandfather's farm used a piece of machinery on the wrong day. The resulting fire burnt out the district, but my Great-Grandfather's losses were minor. The family story is that he spent the rest of his life apologising to his neighbors.

I suppose that lad's parents are going to do the same.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Yes. I heard a parent who was there after the shooting say that one mother kept waiting and waiting to hear news of her child and then finally heard that her son was the shooter. The parent telling the story said she held the woman while she threw-up.

So sad, it reminded me of the book, "We Need to Talk About Kevin," but in this case there seemed to have been no warning signs. The boy was friendly and open with the other students.

I don't think there needs to be guns in any home but particularly not guns in homes with mentally ill people or teens. Teens are still making decisions with the emotional part of their brain and all it takes for some of them to snap is an insult on social media, or a breakup with the girlfriend. What would be slamming out of the house and running a few miles could become a suicide or a shooting when a gun is available.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Yes, I've read that book too. That poor mother. I'm not a parent, but I have an imagination. I think you're spot on about gun availability around the mentally ill and teens. It still amazes me that so many people were shot in Las Vegas without any significant response from legislators. Being shot can bring a lifetime of disability.

[ 28. January 2018, 00:12: Message edited by: simontoad ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
That mother of the shooter? It was even weirder. She's an editor at a local paper, and rushed to the school to cover the shooting (Yahoo).
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
More fun with influence from the NRA: Possible money-laundering.

"Did Russia Use the NRA to Support Trump?" (Esquire).

Grrrrrr.

It's one thing to have an organization for fans of hunting and target shooting, and for keeping the right to do that. It's another for them to push for more and more guns; and yet another to mess with elections.

Double grrrrrr.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Cue prayers and words of condolence, and fuck all action.

Fuck, again. [brick wall]
 
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
More students killed today. [Frown]

The news station just showed a video taken from inside a classroom. The sound of the gun fire is terrifying.

As so many have asked before...Why? How can lawmakers still rationalize putting guns into the hands of just about anyone who wants one? Where is the red line? Does one even exist?

Sorry. I'm just feeling extremely hopeless and impotent about these unnecessary tragedies.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jedijudy:
Sorry. I'm just feeling extremely hopeless and impotent about these unnecessary tragedies.
Hence my [brick wall]
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
At least 17 are dead. Swearing and blasphemy are not good enough to express my emotions.
 
Posted by Crśsos (# 238) on :
 
Time to re-set the "Now Is Not The Time" back to zero.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A cartoon by an atheist.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A cartoon by an atheist.
"Sorry, this content in not available right now."
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Drat, sorry. Here is a better link to it, I hope.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
That link works.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Yeah, the link works. I don’t see the point though.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
To paraphrase Brian McLaren, America, the world's first first world failed state.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Here is somebody doing at least something about it: every time an elected official offers their "thoughts and prayers", she's tweeting right back how much money they received in donations from the NRA.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yeah, the link works. I don’t see the point though.
It's quite simple really.

In something like aviation, someone seeks to take out a plane and even the US slaps draconian measures on flying, restricting freedoms and rights to keep people safe.

In the UK we had someone walk into a school, shooting and killing 16 kids and a teacher. We looked at the law relating to firearms, changed them and more than 20 years later we've not had another mass shooting in a school. [other nations can say similar things]

Offering prayers and messages of condolence don't bring back those shot. They do fuck all to prevent future shootings.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Or, in the words of Martin Luther King Jr,

"The administration's only concrete response was to initiate a study and call for a day of prayer. As a minister, I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility. When a government commands more wealth and power than has ever been known in the history of the world, and offers no more than this, it is worse than blind, it is provocative."
 
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
As one of my cousins mentioned, one person put a bomb in his shoe to blow up a passenger jet, and now we all take our shoes off to be checked.

Every member of congress who refuses to address this, every member of congress who says 'this is not the time', every member of congress who cares more about their contributions from the NRA than about human life should be held responsible for the deaths of all these people who have been murdered because of their selfish actions.

Just another thought while I'm so angry...aren't a lot of these pro-gun, 2nd amendment congresspersons also pro-life? So life after birth is no longer sacred?

Sorry, Hosts, for the deceased equine I threw into the mix. I will take my licks.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Practically speaking, how would it be possible to reduce gun ownership in the US? Even enough to reduce these kind of incidents? People wouldn't hand over their weapons, would they? In fact, every time something like this happens, it seems to harden the resolve to continue the proliferation and increase the ownership, because it's a constitutional 'right'.

It's as if murdered school-kids is acceptable collateral for the benefits of having a right to bear arms; but the real tragedy would be reducing the influence and power of the NRA lobby.

I can't imagine where a gun-owning culture could even begin to tackle that.

Feeling so very sad for the wasted lives and the relatives of the murdered.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Ah, but the Congresscreeps you mention surely have a vested interest in the number of people killed by guns, given the huge amount of $$$ given by the NRA to put/keep them in power.

The bigger the industry, the bigger the load of dosh available.

An abortion doesn't require a bullet....

IJ
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Practically speaking, how would it be possible to reduce gun ownership in the US? Even enough to reduce these kind of incidents?
More or less the same way as gun ownership has been reduced elsewhere. Change the laws so that ownership of some types of gun is illegal and the people permitted to own guns is reduced. Introduce buy-back schemes for people to hand in guns that will be illegal in the near future. Destroy those guns. Once those guns are illegal, have amnesties where they can be handed in without facing prosecution for holding them.

It's not impracticable, if there's the political will to enact meaningful restrictions on gun ownership.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Perhaps a number of those projectors which stream images onto buildings around Washington, alternating those smiley images of the living people with the images of their bleeding bodies.

Would innumerable letters from the bereaved finally get through? And letters from the electorate of the men who do not represent the will of the people in this matter? Sacks and sacks of them. And denial of service by filling their emails over and over again?

It does occur to me that before any buy-back, amnesty or whatever, the supply of bullets would have to be cut to zero, and anyone who had pre-ordered a lot more than could be accounted for reasonably visited. Very carefully.

[ 15. February 2018, 10:26: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I’m hoping the USA will arrive at a tipping point, when people say ‘no more of this’ and have an overwhelming voice.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I suppose the sentimentality about guns is an irrational element in US society, and therefore not amenable to reason, or even emotional shock. I guess eventually there will be a tipping point, but it could take a very long time. 50 years?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
According to this reasoning, which is hard to argue with, the tipping point was passed some time ago, and it didn't tip the way one might hope.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
I'm guessing that the American people value keeping their guns so much that it is worth sacrificing a few schoolchildren to retain that right. For this reason nothing will change and further mass murders will continue long into the future. Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
If the murder of six year-olds at Sandy Hook wasn't the tipping point, there never will be one.

As long as gun owners are unashamed of caring more about their hobby than the lives of innocent children, we will have guns.

They will just keep blaming everyone and every thing more than guns. They will frighten people with "active shooter," videos and imply that if you just do the brave thing, or have a gun yourself, you should be able to stop the taking of lives.

They will blame the mentally ill and further stigmatize them. They will blame violent video games even though countries like Japan have more violent games than we have and very little gun violence.

They will continue to talk about our constitution as though it was written by God.

Today I heard the sheriff in Florida angrily talk about the need for kids to notify someone when they see something suspicious on social media. He implied it was the shooter's fellow students who were at fault for not heeding the "red flags," on the shooter's Facebook site. There were 3000 kids in that school if the police think all their social media postings should be monitored they should do it themselves.

You know what's a red flag? A troubled, grieving teen with an assault rifle, but no adult questioned that, I guess.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
And Trump blames the pupils [Roll Eyes] [Mad]

He tweeted -
“So many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed, even expelled from school for bad and erratic behavior. Neighbors and classmates knew he was a big problem. Must always report such instances to authorities, again and again!”

Twat
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Twat
Sorry, Boogie, I don't think that's right.

What it should have been is:
"ignorant, victim-blaming, deceitful, gun-promoting, violence-facilitating, anger-stoking, dangerous, divisive, mendacious twat."

Though, to be fair, I may have missed some words off myself.

I mean.. . I try not to speak ill of people, I try to take seriously Jesus' words about the dangers of calling someone a fool and everything else. But when Trump comes out with stuff like this, indeed, pretty much whenever Trump makes a public statement or says anything on Twitter, it just confirms how deceitful and dangerous he is.

He should not be in office. Those words "President" and "Trump" should not be spoken together, unless they're followed by, "but then I woke up from the awful nightmare". But this is beginning to feel like a nightmare we're never going to wake up from.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Now I'm hearing the Liberal on "Morning Joe," talking about gun control with a Colorado senator talking about the laws they passed to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminals. No one has mentioned to him that these school shootings would still have happened if those gun control measures were in place. Yes, this boy was disturbed but not diagnosed with a severe mental illness and not a convicted criminal.

Senator Rubio is spouting the usual, "It's too early to talk about gun control."

I'm tired of all the talk about talking about gun control. I think we need to ban guns, not try to predict who will use them to murder people.

If we're ever going to stand up to the NRA we should do it effectively, because these small measures we call "gun control," would be a whole lot of work for tiny band aids on the problem.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Twat
Sorry, Boogie, I don't think that's right.

What it should have been is:
"ignorant, victim-blaming, deceitful, gun-promoting, violence-facilitating, anger-stoking, dangerous, divisive, mendacious twat."

Though, to be fair, I may have missed some words off myself.

I mean.. . I try not to speak ill of people, I try to take seriously Jesus' words about the dangers of calling someone a fool and everything else. But when Trump comes out with stuff like this, indeed, pretty much whenever Trump makes a public statement or says anything on Twitter, it just confirms how deceitful and dangerous he is.
Indeed. I rarely swear, spoken or written, but sometimes no other language is strong enough.

Meanwhile For sale today in the USA .

[Tear] [Frown]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Now I'm hearing the Liberal on "Morning Joe," talking about gun control with a Colorado senator talking about the laws they passed to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminals. No one has mentioned to him that these school shootings would still have happened if those gun control measures were in place. Yes, this boy was disturbed but not diagnosed with a severe mental illness and not a convicted criminal.

Senator Rubio is spouting the usual, "It's too early to talk about gun control."

I'm tired of all the talk about talking about gun control. I think we need to ban guns, not try to predict who will use them to murder people.

If we're ever going to stand up to the NRA we should do it effectively, because these small measures we call "gun control," would be a whole lot of work for tiny band aids on the problem.
It wasn't too early to invade Kuwait

It wasn't too early to pass the Patriot Act

It wasn't too early to prevent passengers taking a bottle of water onto an airliner

It wasn't too early to ban citizens of those middle eastern nations that hadn't sponsored terrorism against the West

It wasn't too early to invade Iraq (again) then , Afghanistan strengthen Al Quada and Da'esh, to bomb Syria and fuck up half the Middle East which we continue to do

On the other hand, America's very own gun nuts continue unabated. Let's have that "Well-regulated militia" and, ideally, send them to the Middle East so they can be big brave boys over there.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I'm guessing that the American people value keeping their guns so much that it is worth sacrificing a few schoolchildren to retain that right. For this reason nothing will change and further mass murders will continue long into the future. Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.
Well, without guns how are we going to defend our log cabins on the frontier against those vicious native Americans?
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Let's have that "Well-regulated militia" and, ideally, send them to the Middle East so they can be big brave boys over there.
I love that idea! Let be sure to let them take their own guns, all of them.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Honestly, you are wasting your time (sadly). The argument has already been pre-discounted. Go and take a look at the comments over on Breitbart if you want to know what the heartland thinks about gun control right now.

I wish I knew what the answer was. Maybe there is no answer. Gun love passed from hobby to fetish long ago. You don't separate a man from his true love without a fight. There are ways to intervene when an individual is hell-bent on self destruction, but I doubt if there are any that can be used for whole subcultures.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
One of the deep roots of the problem is the propaganda that the NRA has been shilling for the past fifty years or so. Remember when Obama was going to take all the guns away? They ginned that up so that people would stockpile guns and ammo. How happy the manufacturers were! The NRA has a significant swathe of the population (see them over on Breitbart) who truly believe that all Americans everywhere should have guns at all times: in the pews, in the schools, in the malls. It is these hapless dupes that have to learn better. Because they vote, and those spineless congressmen can point to them and say, "But Americans want it this way!!"

I see at least one simple regulatory fix for this: insurance. Did you know that gun manufacturers are not liable for damage caused by their product? They rammed a law through Congress exempting them from any such penalties. Drug manufacturers, car manufacturers, the makers of candy or soda, none of these people get such protection. If I kill you with my Ford your heirs could possibly sue the manufacturer and win. And with this pressure the car people have made cars significantly safer in our lifetime. If the manufacturer of that AR-15 was liable to be sued by the survivors of all 17 victims, you can bet there would be a salutary effect.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
BBC reports this sensible Tweet from actor Mark Ruffalo:
quote:
Prayers without accordant action are silent lies told to oneself, heard by no God, amounting to nothing. Action is the language of truth, the prayers of the Saints.
IJ
 
Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on :
 
There's a thread on f/b at the moment after someone shared a photo of a church notice board saying (paraphrase) that there would continue to be school shootings as long as Americans love their guns more than their children. It's caused quite a major stink.
It amazes me how a Texan friend, who is an active Christian, defends guns so vehemently. The argument seems to be that if guns weren't allowed, then the good guys wouldn't be able to defend the good people from the evil people who are misusing their guns. Yet she was anxious today because her infant school daughter had a lock down drill in school, and so she is considering home educating.
I'm not anti guns per se - I have shot with a powerful air pistol and an air rifle - but there HAS to be control. Otherwise, how many more school shootings will we have?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Alas, when it comes to (some) Americans and their obsession with guns, then common-sense gets its coat, leaves, and closes the door behind it.

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
A young man of my acquaintance, a devout Presbyterian very active in his church, was drooling the other day over the gun he was going to buy for himself on his 21st birthday. "Ah, yes, exactly the kind that Jesus would choose" was my response.

I honestly don't see how "Christian" and "gun owner" could be used in the same sentence.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Another relatively simple regulatory fix would be training. Nobody would have their gun taken away! But you would be obliged to be trained and certified in its use. I believe in Switzerland this has to happen once a year. If in the interval you become mentally ill, visually impaired, or physically handicapped so that your safe usage of that gun is affected, you lose your license. Could happen to anybody, right? It's an act of God, if you have a retinal tear and suddenly lose three quarters of your vision. You can still keep the gun! You just can't shoot it, but who wants a blind man shooting a gun, eh?
The charm of this is that all that training and certification has to be done by somebody, and thus the NRA would be comforted and have a significant income stream. (That's what they used to do, when I was a girl. They were mainly a training/teaching organization.)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
And Trump blames the pupils [Roll Eyes] [Mad]

He tweeted -
“So many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed, even expelled from school for bad and erratic behavior. Neighbors and classmates knew he was a big problem. Must always report such instances to authorities, again and again!”

Twat
He clearly hadn't seen the note which said this kid had been reported to the FBI.

Reporting doesn't help if it isn't accompanied by effective measures to help kids deal with the stresses of life. Not to forget making it difficult for disturbed kids to get access to guns.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I think the time is long past for expecting any rational response from Lunatic Lonald Lump.

IJ
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
How far was this individual from any of the rest of us, really? All of us are just a single tragedy away from feeling the kind of nihilistic pain that leads to these horrific events. Pretending that we can pick out "bad guys" is a childish fairy tale.

We need to protect ourselves from ourselves. We need to put away our high-powered deadly binkies and grow the fuck up.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
How far was this individual from any of the rest of us, really? All of us are just a single tragedy away from feeling the kind of nihilistic pain that leads to these horrific events. Pretending that we can pick out "bad guys" is a childish fairy tale.

We need to protect ourselves from ourselves. We need to put away our high-powered deadly binkies and grow the fuck up.
I dunno. Maybe Trump is right in saying that you can pick out bad guys. That one in the Oval Office looks and sounds like one.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:


Offering prayers and messages of condolence don't bring back those shot. They do fuck all to prevent future shootings.
I get that. Just seemed a pointless, uninspired phrasing of an obvious POV.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Practically speaking, how would it be possible to reduce gun ownership in the US? Even enough to reduce these kind of incidents?
More or less the same way as gun ownership has been reduced elsewhere. Change the laws so that ownership of some types of gun is illegal and the people permitted to own guns is reduced.
To have a chance, it would have to be a gradual thing. Going to a completely sensible number of weapons in one go would never happen in America. Though polls show most Americans favour some sort of gun control, it doesn't tell the complete story.
Part of the problem is that assault rifles, and other obviously unnecessary guns, are not the problem.
Pistols are. And far fewer Americans are comfortable with banning those.

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
How far was this individual from any of the rest of us, really?
I don't tink most people would do what he did, but that doers not matter.
This shooter, like all the mass shooters, is statistically irrelevant.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Trump is just using a distraction technique, I think. He doesn't want to talk about gun control, but look, over there, there's someone we can blame, people who don't report weirdos, and then, there are people who do X and Y, so phew, I'm off the hook.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Perhaps Falling Down should be compulsory viewing.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Perhaps Falling Down should be compulsory viewing.
Yeah, a revenge fantasy where the audience are expected to root for the weapon-wielding maniac for most of the film.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is from the Washington POST, a roundup of all the ways in which the president and Congress have not only failed to make us safer but in fact have made things worse. Did you know that if you are injured in a mass shooting that you had better have health insurance? If you don't, off you go to GoFundMe to put out a begging bowl, because Medicaid is not there for you.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
How far was this individual from any of the rest of us, really? All of us are just a single tragedy away from feeling the kind of nihilistic pain that leads to these horrific events. Pretending that we can pick out "bad guys" is a childish fairy tale.

We need to protect ourselves from ourselves. We need to put away our high-powered deadly binkies and grow the fuck up.
Not quite re the first. We are all human and share the possibility of violence, but being rageful and fantasizing about violence and actually doing it are different both within individuals experiencing the feelings and thoughts, and for others they might affect.

American Psych Association info provides some info. The "developmental issues" segment is helpful I think.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Any of us can, in theory, run off the rails. If you don't happen to own an AR-15, the damage you can do is much less.

Here's a (free) article listing the congresspeople who were the top recipients of $ from the NRA.

More cruelly, TV host Jimmy Kimmel is tweeting every 'thoughts and prayers' message from a congressperson, followed by the dollar amount they receive from the NRA. Our congresspersons are by and large a worthless set.

[ 15. February 2018, 17:57: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We are all human and share the possibility of violence, but being rageful and fantasizing about violence and actually doing it are different both within individuals experiencing the feelings and thoughts, and for others they might affect.
So, if I understand your assertion correctly, the separation between ideation and action differs for various individuals. Well comrade, welcome to the fucking point. Firearms functionally close the gap between ideation and action to a terrifying degree such that a drastically higher proportion of humans are at risk of spilling their strong feelings over into deadly action.

Perhaps the risk of an assault weapon shooting spree is poignant, but it's all the drunken spouse fights that turn in to murder-suicides that rack up the big cumulative numbers.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
One of the deep roots of the problem is the propaganda that the NRA has been shilling for the past fifty years or so. Remember when Obama was going to take all the guns away? They ginned that up so that people would stockpile guns and ammo. How happy the manufacturers were!
And much the opposite has happened with Trump in office.
One of America's largest gunmakers is looking to file for bankruptcy.
quote:
Remington’s sales have declined in part because of receding fears that guns will become more heavily regulated by the U.S. government, according to credit ratings agencies. President Donald Trump has said he will “never, ever infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
and
quote:
Remington’s sales plunged 27 percent in the first nine months of 2017, resulting in a $28 million operating loss.

 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Perhaps Falling Down should be compulsory viewing.
Yeah, a revenge fantasy where the audience are expected to root for the weapon-wielding maniac for most of the film.
Well, if that's your takeaway, then you're seeing a very different story to me.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Perhaps Falling Down should be compulsory viewing.
Yeah, a revenge fantasy where the audience are expected to root for the weapon-wielding maniac for most of the film.
Well, if that's your takeaway, then you're seeing a very different story to me.
The film is a bit spoiled by the Michael Douglas character not being an ordinary bloke, just like anyone else, who cracks under the strain of a failing marriage and life in general. If the Michael Douglas character was a normal guy who cracked it would have been a better, but much more disturbing film.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Perhaps Falling Down should be compulsory viewing.
Yeah, a revenge fantasy where the audience are expected to root for the weapon-wielding maniac for most of the film.
Well, if that's your takeaway, then you're seeing a very different story to me.
Spoilers


Spoilers


Spoilers


It isn't a revenge fantasy ala Death Wish or Dirty Harry, but it is written to give sympathy for Douglas' character and the things he does represent the frustrations and fears of the audience. Perceived poor service, gang members, confronting a racist, attacking government waste; all things that people might dislike and might have a fantasy revenge thought about. It is OTT and the audience understand it is wrong, but they are meant to relate. At least until the end.
And it is the end, and pretty much only the end, that has the anti-gun message you imply.
Especially for Americans, but not only them. Though the people who need to hear it will ignore it anyway.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
If Hollywood films glamorising gun killing have gotten the US into this mess then in theory some fragile hope exists that anti-gun films may get it out of it.
Eastwood has already tried this to some extent with his soul searching film Unforgiven . The average gun nut probably got his jollies off with the way that one ended anyway.

All this has however been left way behind with the impact of virtual reality and computer games. I am sorry to conclude that Hollywood may as well fart into a Hurricane as think it can come up with anything to halt the scourge of US killing-sprees undertaken by it’s own citizens.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Or, in the words of Martin Luther King Jr,

"The administration's only concrete response was to initiate a study and call for a day of prayer. As a minister, I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility. When a government commands more wealth and power than has ever been known in the history of the world, and offers no more than this, it is worse than blind, it is provocative."
I can't find the source Alan. I don't doubt it for a moment.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
After an entire day of watching Republican Senators, Governors and a few Democrats imply that all we need to do is, "keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill," I'm exhausted from anger.

That seems to be the go to spin for all politicians. How they plan to determine who is mentally ill, in a country where most towns refuse to pass tax levies for mental health clinics, I don't know. Before someone can be diagnosed with a mental illness they have to actually see a doctor. Only then will their names be sent to a gun control registry. If they actually are seeing a doctor they are probably taking medication for their illness, in which case, statistics show they are actually less likely to commit a violent crime than "normal" people.

Of course, many mass murderers like the one who shot 49 people in LA, are not mentally ill at all, but our politicians are ignoring them. They are also ignoring the ones who did have a serious mental illness but used their uncle's, their mother's or their neighbor's gun. Being unable to buy a gun doesn't mean they will be unable to acquire a gun.

No one is asking these politicians just how they expect to "keep guns out of the hands of people like this" as the president promised we would do. Will they hire the Long Island Medium to tell the authorities exactly who has plans for school shootings? Will the police then go to his house and confiscate his guns based on what they think he might do?

Some good citizen in Mississippi saw a YouTube post by the Florida shooter, last September, in which he was promising to become a professional school shooter. The alert citizen did what the president thinks we should all do and reported this red flag to the FBI. From the FBI's own account during today's press conference it sounds like they did a much more intensive background check and personal grilling on the Mississippi citizen then they did on the man who was making threats online. Lesson noted by me and others.

When will they stop this senseless rhetoric about keeping guns away from the bad guys? We cannot predict who will get a notion to go to a concert, school, or church and kill people. We can only try to make sure there are no guns around for the perpetrator to use when they snap.

Either that or we can redefine mentally ill as anyone who wants to purchase a gun. After all, isn't the desire to carry a gun everywhere for protection a clear indication of paranoia?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Yep, when we're talking gun control, it's all about improving mental health services. But not any sort of screening or background checks-- that would be intrusive and interfere with their "good guy with a gun" narrative. And then when it's time to fund mental health care, oops, sorry, no money for that. We've got a wall to build.

The bright spot earlier this week (before the tragedy) was the news that gun manufacturer Remington filed for bankrupcy. Because after 8 years of saying "Obama's gonna get your guns!" the NRA-funded election of Trump has undercut all their fear-mongering. The irony is particularly sweet.

I'm supposed to pray for my enemies and the peace and prosperity of the city, but I can't help dancing on this particular grave.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
((Americans frustrated by this situation))

The message coming through on Aussie TV is that the vast majority want background checks, but the politics is against them. I saw one woman being interviewed from a Bay Area pro-safety lobby who was saying that on a state level things are slowly turning around. Her organisation was formed after a shooting in a lawyer's office, but the name eluded me.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
It comes across as completely normal. Serious faced suit and tie people saying "my condolences" and talking about praying as if it's about someone's grandmother who died in her sleep. Their god is themselves. Or the devil.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
((Americans frustrated by this situation))

The message coming through on Aussie TV is that the vast majority want background checks, but the politics is against them. I saw one woman being interviewed from a Bay Area pro-safety lobby who was saying that on a state level things are slowly turning around. Her organisation was formed after a shooting in a lawyer's office, but the name eluded me.
I'm powerfully struck by your phrase "the politics is against them." You've hit exactly on what is so troubling to me: this disembodied "politics," attached, apparently, to nobody and nothing, a sort of poisonous force set loose to shamble among us like Yeats's "rough beast, Its hour come round at last," wreaking mindless destruction for no reason, to no purpose, without any reference whatever to ordinary human endeavor.

This, in a country whose government was meant to be "of the people, for the people, by the people." It's what this country went to war against Great Britain about: the imposition of taxes and disadvantageous policies without any representation in the government doing the imposing.

Most of us want the Dreamers protected.
Most of us want tighter background checks on gun sales.
Most of us want the minimum wage raised.
Most of us want our infrastructure repaired.
Most of us want health insurance as a right.

And on and on. Whatever happened to majority rule?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Odd coincidence about a shooting survivor:

Carly Novell survived by hiding in a closet with other kids. In 1949, her grandfather, then 12 years old, survived the murder of his entire family by hiding in a closet.

She's made some strong opinions known, in the wake of the shooting. She also plans to be a journalist.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
simontoad--

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
((Americans frustrated by this situation))

The message coming through on Aussie TV is that the vast majority want background checks, but the politics is against them. I saw one woman being interviewed from a Bay Area pro-safety lobby who was saying that on a state level things are slowly turning around. Her organisation was formed after a shooting in a lawyer's office, but the name eluded me.
Thanks for the good wishes. [Smile]

I wonder if the organization is related to the 101 California shooting, here in SF in the 90s. 101 California is a high-rise in the Financial District, at the beginning of California St. A man went to the law firm that was handling his wife's side of their divorce. I don't remember how many people he shot/killed. IIRC, the widower of a woman who died there testified before Congress about the need for gun control. I think his kids were with him.

At at my work, some people had radios and happened to catch the initial coverage, and informed the rest of us. Awful.

Wikipedia article.

[Votive]

[ 16. February 2018, 04:02: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Or, in the words of Martin Luther King Jr,

"The administration's only concrete response was to initiate a study and call for a day of prayer. As a minister, I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility. When a government commands more wealth and power than has ever been known in the history of the world, and offers no more than this, it is worse than blind, it is provocative."
I can't find the source Alan. I don't doubt it for a moment.
"Nonviolence and Social Change," 1967
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
A possible resource:

I'm watching Jimmy Kimmel's late-night talk show. He did a great job of calling out T, Congressional Republicans (especially those who claim to be Christian, but only pray), etc. Tears in his eyes, I think.

He also suggested taking action via Every Town. They're anti gun violence, and pro gun control. Tbey also want to vote out "lawmakers beholden to the gun lobby". The "Act" tab takes you to links to various actions you can take.

NOTE TO NON-AMERICANS: Please don't sign any American petitions--you might invalidate them. I you want to use the features where you can send a message to lawmakers, please identify yourself as from elsewhere, for the same reason. Thx.

NOTE TO H/As: It's 3 clicks from here to any place where you can actually take action, so shouldn't run afoul of the "no petition" rule. Thx.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
My new response to anyone who claims that guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Actually it seems that it's Americans that kill people. So if it's NOT guns that kill people, the only conclusion is that there is something peculiarly murderous about a proportion of the American population.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I think the lack of affordable mental health provision in the US might have something to do with it.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
simontoad--

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
((Americans frustrated by this situation))

The message coming through on Aussie TV is that the vast majority want background checks, but the politics is against them. I saw one woman being interviewed from a Bay Area pro-safety lobby who was saying that on a state level things are slowly turning around. Her organisation was formed after a shooting in a lawyer's office, but the name eluded me.
Thanks for the good wishes. [Smile]

I wonder if the organization is related to the 101 California shooting, here in SF in the 90s. 101 California is a high-rise in the Financial District, at the beginning of California St. A man went to the law firm that was handling his wife's side of their divorce. I don't remember how many people he shot/killed. IIRC, the widower of a woman who died there testified before Congress about the need for gun control. I think his kids were with him.

At at my work, some people had radios and happened to catch the initial coverage, and informed the rest of us. Awful.

Wikipedia article.

[Votive]
Yeah that was it, the Giffords Law Centre to Prevent Gun Violence. The woman spoke sense. I should have recalled by remembering Nancy Gifford. She's a bloody legend.

On 'the politics', I think it has something to do with the NRA and something to do with people voting against their interest due to the influence of Fox. However, there is no need nor further point in someone like me analysing or yelling "for God's sake do something!" through my keyboard as most Americans seem to have a pretty good handle on what needs doing.

This has caused me to lower my US gun control outlook status from "not a hope in hell" to "I'm hopeful that something good might happen soon, but I have no idea what or when."

You keep at it, sensible majority. I really really really want you to come out on top. I'm sick of crying too.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think the lack of affordable mental health provision in the US might have something to do with it.
That and all the Westerns and their ilk promoting the gun as solution (I sympathize as I love the genre).
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
All we need are armed good guys...

3 minute skit: Youtube
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think the lack of affordable mental health provision in the US might have something to do with it.
That and all the Westerns and their ilk promoting the gun as solution (I sympathize as I love the genre).
Apropos the West, Wyatt Earp (amongst others) had a sound idea. When appointed sheriff of some Bad Place he/they banned carrying in bars and other places in which tempers get frayed knowing that a couple of revolvers could cause mayhem, let alone a modern assault rifle.

[ 16. February 2018, 10:06: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
Yes, my incomplete understanding is that it is far more likely that people handed in their guns on entering a town, as shown in the aforementioned Unforgiven, an excellent film.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
Yes, my incomplete understanding is that it is far more likely that people handed in their guns on entering a town, as shown in the aforementioned Unforgiven, an excellent film.
Yes, that would be better. Out of town, where the bears are, carry your guns. Otherwise, leave law to the lawmen.

I agree it's an excellent film. One of the best. Isn't the town renamed "Hell" in the finale?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I'm not a fan of Westerns, but it is hard to escape the conclusion from US movies that guns (or lethal assualt) are the ultimate solution to everything at the hands of the good guys, an ultimate solution that extends to extrajudicial killing as praiseworthy, heroic even.

[ 16. February 2018, 11:44: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I didn’t realise this -

Most Americans can buy an AR-15 assault rifle before they can buy beer.

Words fail me.

‘Regulation’ seems to be a dirty word to the current administration- but only when it suits them.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not a fan of Westerns, but it is hard to escape the conclusion from US movies that guns (or lethal assualt) are the ultimate solution to everything at the hands of the good guys, an ultimate solution that extends to extrajudicial killing as praiseworthy, heroic even.
We need better stories. It's something that has been preying on my mind for a while, but the number of narratives that rely on the 'good' physically overcoming the 'bad' is pretty overwhelming, and it's often very difficult to think of a different denouement - one that will satisfy both editors and readers.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
My new response to anyone who claims that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Actually it seems that it's Americans that kill people.
A certain young man who I otherwise know to be sensible and honorable was recently wearing a t-shirt that read: "Guns kill people just like pencils cause bad spelling."

Had I been inclined to engage him, I would have pointed out that the purpose of pencils is not to commit spelling errors, but to enable people to make marks on paper that may or may not contain errors; whereas the sole purpose of guns is to enable people to kill.

How can God have made people so stupid?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We need better stories. It's something that has been preying on my mind for a while, but the number of narratives that rely on the 'good' physically overcoming the 'bad' is pretty overwhelming, and it's often very difficult to think of a different denouement - one that will satisfy both editors and readers.
Maybe soft power is a force worth investigating. The various abuse scandals certainly look like changing acceptable narratives right now.

[ 16. February 2018, 12:03: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think the lack of affordable mental health provision in the US might have something to do with it.
And I think constantly blaming it on mental health is a thoroughly foolish thing.

To roughly paraphrase one of the Facebook memes that does the rounds every time this happens: lots of countries have their share of unstable people with grievances. Other countries don't make it so goddamned easy for such people to get a device expressly designed to make killing people a simple thing to do.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not a fan of Westerns, but it is hard to escape the conclusion from US movies that guns (or lethal assualt) are the ultimate solution to everything at the hands of the good guys, an ultimate solution that extends to extrajudicial killing as praiseworthy, heroic even.
We need better stories. It's something that has been preying on my mind for a while, but the number of narratives that rely on the 'good' physically overcoming the 'bad' is pretty overwhelming, and it's often very difficult to think of a different denouement - one that will satisfy both editors and readers.
I think the so-called revisionist western was in part a reply to gung-ho westerns of the past. In fact, Unforgiven would probably be termed revisionist, although the solutions are still found at the point of a gun. An early revisionist film is The Ox-Bow Incident, which shows the perils of rushing to judgment (two men wrongly hung for cattle-rustling).

However, one can still criticize this sub-genre as retaining many elements, e.g. lots of patriarchal stuff. However, there are of course, revisions of this, gay westerns, or westerns with female leading parts.

I don't know if it's an exhausted genre or not. Every time it's written off, it bounces back. Personal note, I'm a fan.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think the lack of affordable mental health provision in the US might have something to do with it.
And I think constantly blaming it on mental health is a thoroughly foolish thing.

To roughly paraphrase one of the Facebook memes that does the rounds every time this happens: lots of countries have their share of unstable people with grievances. Other countries don't make it so goddamned easy for such people to get a device expressly designed to make killing people a simple thing to do.
It's a cop-out by Trump, surely. Is there any evidence that Cruz was mentally unstable? So Trump is now a qualified psychiatrist, yeah.

Also, how will Trump reconcile restrictions on gun purchase by people with a history of mental illness, with the gun lobby?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
It's a cop-out to blame the shooting on mental illness alone, to the exclusion of the profusion of guns, but I think there's a good case to be made for that type of person receiving mental health treatment sooner, at least here in France. Cruz could very likely have been sectioned given how many call-outs there apparently were to his house.

Both issues - gun control and mental health provision - are tied up with populations' perception of the role of the state. I get the feeling the French are much more in favour of state mental health provision due to that perception than Americans.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Time to stop the votive candles. No more of these: [Votive]

The correct emoticon is: [Snigger] or this: [Devil]


It's Alice in Gunland where everyone must have guns and all must shoot childten.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Well, the phrase 'thoughts and prayers' is surely being sullied now by various politicos, who then go on to say, that of course, it's too soon to talk about guns. So our thoughts must not stray to such profane matters. We are to be reverential in the face of mass killings. What abject cowardice this is.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
of course, it's too soon to talk about guns.
Apparently, talking about it while actualy still under siege is a good way of changing people's minds (second person interviewed)...

[ 16. February 2018, 13:03: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
http://theatln.tc/2Ev7OH9

If that link works given I’m trying to cobble something together on my iPhone: who to blame.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Lyin' Don actually signed a bill gutting the Obama era bans on selling guns to persons with mental illness. When you put the word 'hypocrite' into Google Images, his picture should come up in one of the illustrations.

One of the things the gun industry has done is to carefully obscure knowledge of how much damage their product is doing to us.

And here is a detailed analysis
of how the NRA spends its money to influence policy.

These are free clicks.

[ 16. February 2018, 13:29: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
...
This, in a country whose government was meant to be "of the people, for the people, by the people." It's what this country went to war against Great Britain about: the imposition of taxes and disadvantageous policies without any representation in the government doing the imposing. ...
And on and on. Whatever happened to majority rule?
Ronald Reagan told the people of the USA that the federal government was the enemy, and they swallowed it, hook, line and sinker.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Ronald Reagan[/URL] told the people of the USA that the federal government was the enemy, and they swallowed it, hook, line and sinker.
"Swallowed," as if it were a lie? But it isn't, is it? Republicans have made the statement true: Vast transfers of wealth from the poor and middle class to corporations and billionaires; cuts to social safety nets; denial of health care to all but the well-off; weapons policies that result in the routine slaughter of ordinary citizens and their children. How is the federal government not the enemy here?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think there's a good case to be made for that type of person receiving mental health treatment sooner
I think it goes without saying that there is a good case for improvements in provision of mental health services - a statement that I believe is universal, whatever country you're in mental health issues always come a poor second to physical health. The ideal is always going to be that people struggling with life receive the help they need to cope such that they don't end up harming themselves or others.

But, we don't live in an ideal world. We're not going to identify everyone who needs help any more than we're going to identify every cancer early enough to treat it. Adequate provision of health services will help, but saying you need that at the same time as cutting health service provision is just plain stupid. If the present incumbent in the White House wants to help people with health issues then he needs to force a sensible health and welfare package through Congress such that everyone in need receives the care they need at a cost that's affordable to them (ie: free for many, if not all, people). In particular fund primary care that identifies issues before they become problems.

Not that it will stop the growing death toll from guns. That will need to significantly reduce the number of guns in private hands, and make obtaining a gun much much harder.

But, decent health care provision is a Good Thing™ regardless of whether or not it will help stem the slaughter of children in class rooms.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And the internet is afloat today with memes noting that if you insist that guns must be unregulated, and at the same time gut the health insurance system, you are fucking crazy.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
ISTM that it's the 'leaders/government' of the US that need mental health treatment, starting with Lovely Leader Lonald Lump.

I daresay they could all afford it.

I'll send some thoughts and prayers over to them, to soften the blow on their wallets.

Gobshites, one and all.

IJ
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
If you're playing the mental health card then that immediately limits the guns to about 60% of the population since around 40% (estimates do vary) of people will exhibit some characteristics of mental impairment at some point.

Who's to say what "normal" is anyway?

If you admit to being possibly likely to use firearms to get your point across in anything other than a him/me life/death situation, then I'd suggest that you keep the firing to a registered club.

As to the argument about loss of freedom, well the USA is already the most repressive regime on the planet so one more law isn't going to make that much difference. I also suggest that the NRA is arraigned for bribery.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Who's to say what "normal" is anyway?
The trouble with normal is that it always gets worse. And that was written in 1981.

Though I'd also say that we have "Time's Arrow" and "Time's Cycle". At times like these, it's best not to be too linear in our thinking. A re-read of Barbara Tuchman's "The Proud Tower" may be in order (the title of which is from an Edgar Allan Poe poem, which also is helpful in understanding we've been here before, and some have the t-shirts to prove it).
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, the phrase 'thoughts and prayers' is surely being sullied now by various politicos, who then go on to say, that of course, it's too soon to talk about guns. So our thoughts must not stray to such profane matters. We are to be reverential in the face of mass killings. What abject cowardice this is.
Prayer is often something we do because we are impotent to do anything else, and I think that there is a recognition that this is human and understandable across the board. When Carl Sagan and Christopher Hitchens, respectively, were diagnosed with cancer they both acknowledged that people prayed for them and expressed gratitude despite having very different views about the Great Perhaps than the people praying. Ed Miliband once confessed that the only occasion in his life that he had prayed was when his father was on his death bed. I think the decent and loving Christian response to that is that anyone making smug remarks about atheists and foxholes deserved a kick on the shins. In thee face of impotence a recourse to prayer is something people do and those who pray deserve our sympathy whether we agree with St. John of the Cross or Richard Dawkins. But to offer one's prayers as an alternative to concrete help that we could offer in the face of preventable tragedy is despicable. Jesus once said that if your son asks for bread, you do not give him a stone. He had clearly not met any Republicans.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Truly, the politicos/fundiegelicals of Usania have created god in their own image.

Time for Judgement Day, perhaps?

Meanwhile, I was talking to two ladies in our local Community Centre café today, and the subject of the latest massacre naturally came up (we Uklanders are also appalled at this apparently now regular occurrence).

The ladies asked, in effect, why The Women Of America, whether wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, or whatever, do not simply rise in righteous wrath, and indignation, and sweep their (mostly) male governmental gobshites into oblivion.

Answers?

IJ
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
It seems to me that the pro-gun apolgists will always trot out their little mantra of Guns don't kill people, bad people kill people as and until it is somehow brought to general attention that to prevent this cycle it is necessary to keep the guns away from the bad people.

Now, trying to regulate gun ownership by "bad" people is a non-starter - so you have to limit gun ownership across the board. After all, it is incontrovertible that if the "bad" person doesn't have a gun then they cannot kill - or at least not with a legally owned firearm.

In the meantime, perhaps there should be a campaign mounted alongside all the glossy advertisements saying Come to America - something along the lines of Come to the USA - home of the mass gun ownership and random gun massacres.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Just saw a meme which ran, "Yes, guns don't kill people, people kill people. That's why we want registration and training and renewing licenses. No one cares about the guns."

Over in the Post the great Jennifer Rubin lists and then refutes every half-brained argument the gun lobby makes.

And Congress takes another one of their perfunctory runs at gun legislation. They do this after every tragedy, in addition to the 'thoughts and prayers'. BTW there is a move on to send these congresspersons checks. The amount written is of course 'thoughts and prayers;' if they think that's helpful then they can have it.

[ 16. February 2018, 18:05: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is a good click, one you will feel better for seeing: a cartoon about one of the teachers. This is the man who died while shepherding his pupils to safety. His soul undoubtedly gazes upon that of the Savior today.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Actually, Brenda, that cartoon brought a tear to my world-weary and cynical eye.

So moving, and what an antidote to the banal, meaningless 'thoughts and prayers' of Lump and his toadies.

[Votive] Mr. Feis.

IJ
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
Where I live, the Legislature has been busily making it easier for anyone and everyone to buy and carry guns, without training or licensing or vetting or any other common-sense measure. I just don't understand the thought processes behind their votes, unless it really is just about money.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
From a naive Canadian north of the border:
Here in BC, our new provincial government is looking at ways to increase stiff penalties for reckless driving, place more red light cameras, all in an effort to reduce vehicle fatalities.

No one, I know, believes in a "right to drive". Driving is a privilege, and it is almost taken for granted that the state has a duty to ensure that driving is regulated, from proper licensing and training of new drivers to stiff enforcement of driving offenses from speeding to drunk driving. With the regulation and licensing, most people who are drivers still drive their cars to work, enjoy driving their families and friends.

I wonder why some Americans don't apply that thinking to proper gun control and gun safety.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
The best quote I've seen so far is this:

quote:
We should just ban all guns and then when gun owners complain send our thoughts and prayers. If it's good enough when you lose your child then it'll be more than enough when you lose your gun
You see I do believe in prayer and I believe it is a spiritual connection with the heart of God. To send ones prayers to someone suffering in a horrible way and then to object to measures that are so desperately needed is the deepest of hypocrisy and the very opposite of prayer...

AFZ
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
"Thoughts and prayers" from people in power, who actually do nothing to change the gun situation are blasphemy.

As I've said before there aren't enough millstones.

Huia [Mad]

[ 16. February 2018, 19:14: Message edited by: Huia ]
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
"Thoughts and prayers" from people in power, who actually do nothing to change the gun situation are blasphemy.

As I've said before there aren't enough millstones.

Huia [Mad]
The hypocrisy is that "thoughts and prayers" are never applied to other issues.

When the wealthy few whined for more tax cuts, the Republican politicians did not send them "thoughts and prayers", so that they could accept with gracious humility the reality that they should pay higher taxes than the poor. No, the Republicans went forward and cut their taxes.

When the Republicans argued that Saddam Hussein had WMD with no evidence, they did not send Hussein "thoughts and prayers" so that he may turn from the way of violence and accept the way of peace. No, the Republicans went forward and bombed Iraq.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
"Thoughts and prayers" from people in power, who actually do nothing to change the gun situation are blasphemy.

As I've said before there aren't enough millstones.

Huia [Mad]
Yep, blasphemy is the word.

AFZ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is a creative response: a website where you can sign up to politicize your death. It is a response to that perpetual GOP wheeze, "It's too soon to discuss the tragedy." And it is inspired by the brave teenaged survivors of the Florida shooting, who are crying out for justice.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I wonder why some Americans don't apply that thinking to proper gun control and gun safety.
Because they have an inalienable right, written in stone by the finger of God in the Garden of Eden, immutable and eternal, without any exclusions and get out clauses.

The Constitutional Right to Slaughter Innocents.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's a cop-out to blame the shooting on mental illness alone, to the exclusion of the profusion of guns, but I think there's a good case to be made for that type of person receiving mental health treatment sooner, at least here in France. Cruz could very likely have been sectioned given how many call-outs there apparently were to his house.

Both issues - gun control and mental health provision - are tied up with populations' perception of the role of the state. I get the feeling the French are much more in favour of state mental health provision due to that perception than Americans.
How is that tweet any evidence of mental illness?

I mean, the first problem is it doesn’t even tell you how many of those calls were about HIM.

[ 16. February 2018, 20:31: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's a cop-out to blame the shooting on mental illness alone,
It isn’t a cop-out, but a red herring, hypocritical and irrelevant. Yes, laws should not allow dangerously disturbed people to have guns. But that will miss most shooters and the NRA and their puppets have fought against excluding them so pretending they give a shit is ludicrous.
Kudos on those tweeting the hypocrisy of these bell-ends, but the bastards voting records should be on a massive scroll just below everything they say.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
300 million guns legally in circulation presents the USA with a unique challenge. orfeo and I joined forces with others in a previous thread, presenting the global evidence of comparative homicide rates, pointing to evidence of risk arising from possession and carrying of guns.

But it actually very difficult for the USA to move from the current unique risk factors to a safer environment. Sure, the successful lobbying by the NRA makes it even more difficult, but it would still be a very difficult journey if there were no NRA.

[ 16. February 2018, 21:18: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Anyone who thinks that the solution to the American gun problem will be simple or quick doesn’t know Americans.
The majority of Americans support gun control. In general terms. In specific terms, it gets more fuzzy.
Most will acknowledge some sort of control is necessary, a minority support a complete ban and the gap between is a minefield.
One major problem is that the most effective strategy would be the very one the paranoid fear most. A gradual lessening.

[ 16. February 2018, 21:35: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
300 million guns legally in circulation presents the USA with a unique challenge. orfeo and I joined forces with others in a previous thread, presenting the global evidence of comparative homicide rates, pointing to evidence of risk arising from possession and carrying of guns.
Americans who have an opinion on gun control divide pretty neatly into two camps: those who know all the evidence and don't need to be scolded about it (not saying you yourself are scolding), and those who either don't believe it, or don't care (mostly both). Too often these threads devolve into non-Americans wagging their fingers and telling us we're all a bunch of evil murderers because we haven't solved this problem yet. Which is enraging.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
My experience with Americans is that it isn't that simple.
And that the divisions a more varied, especially in the What To Do dept.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Too often these threads devolve into non-Americans wagging their fingers and telling us we're all a bunch of evil murderers because we haven't solved this problem yet. Which is enraging.
No, we don't think that.

We think it's inexplicable that you haven't solved this problem yet, given that solving the problem elsewhere has several international precedents that have worked. So generally, we're just utterly perplexed.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Too often these threads devolve into non-Americans wagging their fingers and telling us we're all a bunch of evil murderers because we haven't solved this problem yet. Which is enraging.
No, we don't think that.

We think it's inexplicable that you haven't solved this problem yet, given that solving the problem elsewhere has several international precedents that have worked. So generally, we're just utterly perplexed.
And not all Americans find the global response enraging. Most of us are just as perplexed as Doc Tor-- but probably with a higher ratio of quiet desperation mixed in
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Over 1.6 million high school students can legally buy an AR-15 in the US. But not a handgun. Also, most of them are not old enough to drink.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And not all Americans find the global response enraging. Most of us are just as perplexed as Doc Tor--
Seriously? The gun is tied into the mythos of freedom in America. The lack of trust in government is much more pervasive than in Europe, despite having much less reason. 153 years of pushing the concept of brown people are dangerous and ready to take over. The media constantly pushing stories of danger even when crime rates are falling.
I understand the despair, not not the confusion.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Ronald Reagan[/URL] told the people of the USA that the federal government was the enemy, and they swallowed it, hook, line and sinker.
"Swallowed," as if it were a lie? But it isn't, is it? Republicans have made the statement true: Vast transfers of wealth from the poor and middle class to corporations and billionaires; cuts to social safety nets; denial of health care to all but the well-off; weapons policies that result in the routine slaughter of ordinary citizens and their children. How is the federal government not the enemy here?
Republican politicians and their various financiers are the enemy (soft enemy). So are the people who advocate for small Government (soft enemy, like factional foes in a joint enterprise). The machinery of Government, the institutions and people who do the day to day stuff are our friends, and by 'our' I mean people of moderate means and poor people. The aim of politics in this age of gross inequity is to pump as much money as possible from the private sector into the public sector to aviod the development of a corporate distopia, sort of like Bladerunner. Warning: Don't re-watch Bladerunner. Be happy with your distorted memories.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Don't re-watch Bladerunner. Be happy with your distorted memories.
Bladerunner is brilliant! Though the new one is a better construct in terms of filmmaking. But it would not stand on its own, so doesn't have the same brilliance.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The three teachers who died to save their students. May their names be written in the book of life, and may their Savior pronounce them to be good and faithful servants.

Here in the DC area there is a misguided movement by the GOP to rename Gravelly Point (a spit of land on the Potomac River) after Nancy Reagan. No one knows why. (It's not like they don't have more important legislative tasks.) One of these men would be a better choice.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
300 million guns legally in circulation presents the USA with a unique challenge. orfeo and I joined forces with others in a previous thread, presenting the global evidence of comparative homicide rates, pointing to evidence of risk arising from possession and carrying of guns.
Americans who have an opinion on gun control divide pretty neatly into two camps: those who know all the evidence and don't need to be scolded about it (not saying you yourself are scolding), and those who either don't believe it, or don't care (mostly both). Too often these threads devolve into non-Americans wagging their fingers and telling us we're all a bunch of evil murderers because we haven't solved this problem yet. Which is enraging.
The only person I've wagged my finger at on this thread is not American. But thank you for your meaningful contribution.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Meanwhile, I've just read about a proposal for a mass walk-out of school students on April 20, refusing to attend unless the law is changed because going to school is too unsafe.

Will be interesting to see what sort of traction there is.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Too often these threads devolve into non-Americans wagging their fingers and telling us we're all a bunch of evil murderers because we haven't solved this problem yet. Which is enraging.
No, we don't think that.

We think it's inexplicable that you haven't solved this problem yet, given that solving the problem elsewhere has several international precedents that have worked. So generally, we're just utterly perplexed.
I'm not in the mood to fight over this. (Well, I could refocus some anger here, but not now.)

But a couple of thoughts:

--MT is right. People have said that sort of thing over and over. That's why this thread, basically. If you need a refresher, go back to pg. 7 of this thread.

--We American Shipmates have posted the whys and wherefores of American mythology. Some people did begin to understand that.

--From what's been said on this thread and in Purg, much of the problem is that non-American Shipmates have a certain image of America, and they don't like finding out that much of it isn't accurate. (One Purg non-American poster explained it as "America is aspirational".)

--I think most Americans would prefer any change to be done legally and non-violently. That rules out many possible approaches...but it's the only way to go.

{Back to a lazy Fri. night of Olympics and ice cream.}
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Too often these threads devolve into non-Americans wagging their fingers and telling us we're all a bunch of evil murderers because we haven't solved this problem yet. Which is enraging.
No, we don't think that.

We think it's inexplicable that you haven't solved this problem yet, given that solving the problem elsewhere has several international precedents that have worked. So generally, we're just utterly perplexed.
I'm not in the mood to fight over this. (Well, I could refocus some anger here, but not now.)

But a couple of thoughts:

--MT is right. People have said that sort of thing over and over. That's why this thread, basically. If you need a refresher, go back to pg. 7 of this thread.

--We American Shipmates have posted the whys and wherefores of American mythology. Some people did begin to understand that.

--From what's been said on this thread and in Purg, much of the problem is that non-American Shipmates have a certain image of America, and they don't like finding out that much of it isn't accurate. (One Purg non-American poster explained it as "America is aspirational".)[/i]
Perhaps you and Doc Tor could refrain from speaking for all American Shipmates and just speak for yourselves. In-group stereotyping is no less annoying than out-group stereotyping.


quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

--I think most Americans would prefer any change to be done legally and non-violently. That rules out many possible approaches...but it's the only way to go.
Wait... was someone here advocating we accomplish gun control thru violent means? I must have missed that...
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
cliffdweller--

Respectfully:

I said that American Shipmates had explained American mythology. Many have, on various threads. Perhaps I should have said "many".

That's the only possible in-group stereotype I can see.

As to "legal and non-violent":

It's come up on both this thread and in Purg. Non-Americans have been beside themselves in worry, grief, and anger, but often showed mostly anger. Insisted that we find some way to fix things, and "what's wrong with you?", etc. I think some general allusions to violence have been mentioned--sounding serious, but maybe just frustration. When I said, on at least a couple of occasions, "What can we do that's legal, non-violent, and ethical--and I might be willing to bend on the ethical", people have generally backed off, IIRC.

ETA: The "legal and non-violent" has been mostly in response to demands that we change the gov't, at all costs. I think there may have been a couple of suggestions to go after gun owners, one way or another--which would cause a civil war.

[ 17. February 2018, 05:08: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Over 1.6 million high school students can legally buy an AR-15 in the US. But not a handgun. Also, most of them are not old enough to drink.
That's not as good as Florida Republicans attempting to sneak through relaxed concealed-carry legislation in an agriculture bill that was due to be tabled the day after the shootings:
quote:
“conveniently tucked in pages 88-90 of this 98 page bill is language that would require the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to grant a Concealed Weapons Permit applicant their permit within 90 days, even if a full background check has not been completed”

 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Yes, Congress has this little trick/scam of hiding a controversial item in a long, dense bill. Congressfolk often don't read the bills in their entirety, or at all. Some rely on staff to do that.

But it's a way to sneak something past their opponents, and both sides do it.

I've got mixed feelings about that: I'd greatly prefer to have things done clearly, cleanly, and openly. However, that would require functioning, ethical adults who care more about other Americans than they do about their stature or pockets.

OTOH, if that's the only way to get a good item through...
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Alan--

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I wonder why some Americans don't apply that thinking to proper gun control and gun safety.
Because they have an inalienable right, written in stone by the finger of God in the Garden of Eden, immutable and eternal, without any exclusions and get out clauses.
You've got the gist. Add in Manifest Destiny crap, pioneer history/mythology, and fear/ distrust/ hatred of authority; stir AND shake; and serve it with frothy fear and arrogance on top.

Yum.
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I said that American Shipmates had explained American mythology.
As a non-American can I just state that what has come across has been descriptions (rather than necessarily explanations - a mythology is an explanation of actions and beliefs rather than something that needs explanation in itself) of a range of mythologies. The mythologies of America are no more monolithic than the people of America, which since there's such a wide range of beliefs is as it should be (the same, of course, is true of any other large national group).

quote:
I think some general allusions to violence have been mentioned--sounding serious, but maybe just frustration.
I have no recollection at all of anyone, anywhere, on the Ship advocating violence to "do something" about guns in the US. Since the problem is violence by people with guns, more violence is more of the same not a solution. I am aware of people elsewhere who have said that forceful confiscation of guns will be needed, which will be violent - but most of the people I've seen say that have been on the "I'll use my guns to defend my guns if you come to take them from me" side of the fence. Of course, there are some people who would consider collecting taxation to be a form of violence (it is, after all, backed by threats of arrest and imprisonment if you don't pay).

quote:
When I said, on at least a couple of occasions, "What can we do that's legal, non-violent, and ethical--and I might be willing to bend on the ethical", people have generally backed off, IIRC.
There have been many, many suggestions - a lot of them from Americans. Who has backed off? During the course of this thread (and other discussions elsewhere) I've heard suggestions of mass rallies and demonstrations, writing to representatives, naming and shaming those representatives who've received NRA blood money. I've heard a lot about challenging the mythology of the "good guy with a gun" (which is, ultimately, the only basis the NRA has for opposing any form of gun control - it will limit the ability of good guys to have guns when needed to defend themselves or others), and redemptive violence more generally (which isn't a uniquely American problem). I can't recall if it was here or on FB, but I've seen a campaign to name and shame the relatively small number of gunshops from which the majority of guns used in crimes were originally purchased. I've seen a lot of people say that the majority of Americans support some form of gun-control, that for the majority the right for anyone to own any gun they can afford to buy is not a given. The UKs gun-control legislation following Hungerford and Dunblane were the result of democratic pressure from the majority of people here that the right to own guns was too much of a danger to others, join and mobilise that majority to make things change. And, that's just what's been suggested that I can remember off the top of my head.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
The anti gun movement needs a slogan, something like....
Guns don't kill people they infect the brains of shooters
Set a wave on motion of 'this cannot continue'. And consign the current crazy gun laws to history.
Legislation which put modest guns in lock-ups for the day when invaders arrive on US shores, or some other cataclysm which might create anarchy, and that's it. The bad days are over.

Easy to say from this side of the pond, and might only be possible in a parallel universe.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Perhaps you and Doc Tor could refrain from speaking for all American Shipmates and just speak for yourselves.
Well done for reading for comprehension.

I was explicitly speaking for non-Americans.

But don't let that get in the way of ... whatever it is you're planning/not planning to do about your national obsession. You have my thoughts and prayers.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Guns don't kill people they infect the brains of shooters
Guns don't protect people; people protect people.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
On allusions to violence, I think I might have tossed off the odd suggestion about disarming the right, but I had detention facilities and re-education camps in mind, just so they could have the satisfaction of being right.

It seems to me obvious that the USA is in a unique position concerning guns and gun control, and a gradual approach, one small step at a time, is warranted. However, writing that is in no way satisfactory on an emotional level if you are feeling upset. It does help with the self-satisfied smugness.

If I say stupid things, often its because I'm being stupid, and sometimes its because I'm angry, and sometimes its because I'm being deliberately silly. I hardly know which applies in the moment.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Guns don't protect people; people protect people.
I want that on a bumper sticker!
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
I like the Non-American input because it helps to see it all from an outside perspective.

Why is America failing to fix this? Because inside America we have a huge powerful cult. Just like religious cults, the people inside are brainwashed, they turn to their leaders (in this case the NRA) for their facts and they believe the people outside the cult are only interested in attacking them with false ideas.

They have made the 2nd Amendment their Bible and they believe their interpretation is inerrant.

They fear the people who want to take their guns. If we succeed, they will have to give up the one thing that makes them feel safe, manly, and in control. If they have a social life at all it revolves around gun club meetings and target practice.

Like the fundamentalist who day-dreams about the rapture when all the nay-sayers are left behind, these NRA cult members dream of the day someone like Nikolas Cruz comes to their church, school or McDonalds and they are the hero who is armed and ready to save us all.

They are literally ready to die for this cult with their gun in their cold dead hands. That's what we're up against.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Excellent summary Twilight.

[Tear]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Indeed.

How on earth can (some of) the gun-god worshippers call themselves 'christians', though?

Perhaps there's enough slaying and smiting in the Bible to justify it.... [Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Great summary, Twilight, plus I think there's one more factor: the "right" bit.

It would be interesting to discover to what extent US citizens -- especially gun-owners -- understand and also exercise non-2nd Amendment rights, and to what extent they feel empowered by such exercise.

Take into consideration the sheer volume of citizens who do not vote, even in Presidential elections. Some of these folks may be prevented from voting (suppression, inability due to location and/or timing of elections, etc.); some may find voting pointless (opposition voters in gerrymandered districts, etc.). Whatever the reason, it appears that a significant proportion of US voters either cannot exercise this right, or do not do so because they take no satisfaction or sense of empowerment from exercising this right -- and voting is a pretty basic right.

Then we come to free speech rights. How many exercise these in any meaningful way -- especially now, when speech has been re-defined as "money?" I'm no doubt biased by my work as a teacher of writing and literature in a small community college, but the levels of reading comprehension and the abilities of 1st-year students to express quite basic ideas in their one-and-only language are deeply discouraging.

I could go on, but you get the idea. The ability to buy a gun is so tangible and immediate. Owning and storing and caring for a gun is such a concrete expression of a "right." The ability to spout off pre-digested NRA slogans in defense of one's gun-ownership is so simple, direct, and uncomplicated.

While there are no doubt gun-owners who are also intelligent, thoughtful citizens, and who engage with their other rights in ways they find empowering and meaningful, I suspect that this particular right stands alone in its ability to help those who exercise it feel empowered, and like real participants in this democracy. For far too many US citizens, owning a weapon appears to be the only "power" they feel they can actually possess and exercise.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And it came to me, this morning. I can name you that cult. Who is it, who demands regular child sacrifice? The rabid gun nuts are worshiping Moloch. Where is the prophet who will step up and denounce the false god?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Here's one.

Well, maybe - though perhaps a little obliquely, and (I guess) from the 'right'.

[Paranoid]

IJ
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
How many times did Bill Murray relive Ground Hog Day in the movie?
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
I'm going to speak up for a third group of Americans: The ones who have shaken the dust from their sandals for this and so many other reasons and are never, ever, ever returning to the USA. Come to Canada. Yes, we have crazy murderous racist farmers with Soviet-era weapons, but we don't have machine guns in our schools, movie theatres or nightclubs. Or baseball games. Or outdoor concerts. Or wherever the next watering of the tree of liberty with the blood of innocent Americans occurs.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
To UK Shipmates:

Someone told me that the right to bear arms is rooted in English common law, yet the UK is able to have strong gun control measures, my guess is part of the reason is the UK's lack of a written constitution.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
To UK Shipmates:

Someone told me that the right to bear arms is rooted in English common law, yet the UK is able to have strong gun control measures, my guess is part of the reason is the UK's lack of a written constitution.
American Law is rooted in English common law because the colonies were English. The whole militia training and arming thing was rooted in the English right to self-protect and in not having to use professional troops to oppress slaves and natives.
Several of the first state constitutions mentioned militias, but most explicitly stated a subordination to civil authority. Most spoke of "common defence". Some did include personal defence, but this was also in the era of wilderness and no professional police.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
To UK Shipmates:

Someone told me that the right to bear arms is rooted in English common law, yet the UK is able to have strong gun control measures, my guess is part of the reason is the UK's lack of a written constitution.
UK common law is an ever changing thing. But, originated with Alfred the Great who (relevant here) created an obligation for everyone to turn out to defend the realm when needed (specifically to repel Viking raids) which the Normans continued to maintain. Clearly, without other provision, that would mean everyone would need to have access to weapons and the training to use them. The 1689 Bill of Rights restated that right for Protestants to bear arms to defend the realm against Catholics and external threat. And, of course, that Bill of Rights wa something that the founders of the US built on.

English common law was very similar to many 18th and 19th century constitutions - it included the obligations of all Englishmen, when needed, to take up arms in defence of the nation (often used to suppress internal strife as well as repel invaders) which required a right to bear arms. Of all those constitutions, 200 or so, only 3 retain a right to bear arms today - and 2 of those are still worded explicitly in relation to national defence.

A potentially useful summary
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
In further examples of fantastical idiocy, a GOP candidate is having a raffle for an automatic rifle as a fundraiser.

More usefully, the opening prayer at the Colorado state house last week.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Oh. Wow.

Rabbi Joe Black - [Overused]

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Elle magazine, best known for fashion photography, has some good coverage.

Meanwhile, Episcopal bishops call for gun control legislation.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There are lots of issues.

Ease of access to guns

'The Game' - saysay is right about that for some cities at least

The doctrinaire block on information gathering as part of ongoing powerful lobbying

The undoubted truth that self defence issues look different in a society awash with guns

The second amendment

The impact of certain elements of the media

The hearts and minds convictions of a lot of people

As a wise person once said, 'I really wouldn't want to start from here'.

The lack of political consensus is hardly surprising.
I said this on p7 of the thread. Still works for me. Wish it didn't.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

Some good citizen in Mississippi saw a YouTube post by the Florida shooter, last September, in which he was promising to become a professional school shooter. The alert citizen did what the president thinks we should all do and reported this red flag to the FBI. From the FBI's own account during today's press conference it sounds like they did a much more intensive background check and personal grilling on the Mississippi citizen then they did on the man who was making threats online.
Even worse...

Tough times for the Bureau.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I wonder just how many tips they receive every day, and how they are supposed to check them out?

One of the issues we face as consumers of news is that we never know how many of these events are stopped in advance by good and timely use of information.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
America. It ain't Kansas Toto.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of all those constitutions, 200 or so, only 3 retain a right to bear arms today - and 2 of those are still worded explicitly in relation to national defence.

A potentially useful summary
For a very long time the US 2nd Amendment was not interpreted how it is now. The idea that it's some kind of individual right to bear arms is a recent notion, and the Supreme Court didn't support it until 2008.

This article is a good description of the history.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
(Declaration: I am not American and as such I hesitate to stick my nose in where it don't belong...)

Whilst I (bearing in mind my declaration above) think that it is perfectly valid to question the interpretation of the Second Amendment and even to ask whether, in the 21st century, it should be dropped, let us suppose for a moment that the Second Amendment should remain and DOES give the right to any citizen of the US to have a rifle.

But what kind of rifle does the Amendment give the right to? At the time of the Amendment, the main weapon available to the populace was this:
Here's what firearms looked like when the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment

So can we not say that every US citizen has the absolute right to possess a musket that can, if someone trains really hard, fire 4 rounds a minute? I'm pretty sure that if someone tried to go on a killing spree with one of those, even if they managed to kill someone with their first shot (bearing in mind their notorious lack of accuracy), by the time they had taken 15-20 seconds to reload, that would have given anyone in the vicinity the time to disarm them and kick 101 shades of shit out of them.

Or have I missed something?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Mostly, you've missed some principles of legal interpretation that discourage rewriting "the right to bear arms" as "the right to bear muskets". Especially when it comes to constitutions, the general view is that it's not supposed to preserve society in amber.

And a good thing too, otherwise same sex marriage wouldn't be counted as "marriage" (to pick a recent Australian example).

[ 17. February 2018, 23:59: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Mostly, you've missed some principles of legal interpretation that discourage rewriting "the right to bear arms" as "the right to bear muskets". Especially when it comes to constitutions, the general view is that it's not supposed to preserve society in amber.

And a good thing too, otherwise same sex marriage wouldn't be counted as "marriage" (to pick a recent Australian example).
But it si a valid point that the founding fathers likely did not envision what modern interpretation has become. And preserve in amber is exactly what 2nd amendmenteers think they are doing.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Mostly, you've missed some principles of legal interpretation that discourage rewriting "the right to bear arms" as "the right to bear muskets". Especially when it comes to constitutions, the general view is that it's not supposed to preserve society in amber.

And a good thing too, otherwise same sex marriage wouldn't be counted as "marriage" (to pick a recent Australian example).
But it si a valid point that the founding fathers likely did not envision what modern interpretation has become. And preserve in amber is exactly what 2nd amendmenteers think they are doing.
This is all entirely true.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A free and detailed analysis of how the NRA spends its money. They've dropped hundreds of millions on influencing policy.

And, the Episcopal bishop of the diocese of Central Florida writes a letter to Senator Marco Rubio. Frankly, IMO the bishop needs a bigger vocabulary. Nowhere do I see the apposite term 'spineless' which can always be applied to Rubio, nor the entirely factual "would fellate a Park policeman's horse in the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue if the NRA waved the dollars."

[ 18. February 2018, 01:38: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
Politically the pendulum has swung such that any legislation restricting the purchase of firearms is almost irrelevant to the discussion for at least a decade.

The only potentially productive paths forward for the foreseeable future are related to culture, health care, law enforcement, and relational data integration.

Everyone was aware of this kid in Florida.

His contemporaries, school administrators, local and federal law enforcement.

His schoolmates admit openly that they expected it, talked about it. The police had been to his house on average every two months for the last five years. The FBI received a tip from a person familiar with the piece of shit on January 5th of this year that he was erratic, owned a gun, and was a potential school shooter! They never even forwarded that information to the regional field office.

Do any of us believe that were it not for the existence of guns there wouldn't have been an issue here? That if only a particular utensil had been unavailable to the sociopath it would have been better because he could have only gotten a fraction of the victims with a bat, or a hammer, or knives or explosives thereby reducing the statistical likelihood of one of the victims being ours?
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The Episcopal bishop of the diocese of Central Florida writes a letter to Senator Marco Rubio. Frankly, IMO the bishop needs a bigger vocabulary.
And a better grammar manual:
quote:
But as a senator I implore you to go to Jesus for wisdom about Parkland.

 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

Do any of us believe that were it not for the existence of guns there wouldn't have been an issue here?
Actually, yes. There is a reason that the gun, not the knife or heavy stick, is called an equalizer. The easy power a gun has is a completely different ballgame than lesser weapons. The fantasy that is fed by the gun is different to the knife.
Whilst it is impossible to know exactly what this individual would do, guns not only make killing easier, they facilitate the thought of it.
But, as I have said before, mass killings are statically irrelevant.
People kill far more people, one or two at a time, by gun than anything else. Killing more than one person with a knife is not that difficult, even if they do not die as quickly, so why do you suppose that is?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

Do any of us believe that were it not for the existence of guns there wouldn't have been an issue here?
Actually, yes.
Anyone who's been here longer than 60 seconds knows you have shit for brains anyway so, no big surprise there.

I'll put you down for "less is more", got it.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Alan--

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I said that American Shipmates had explained American mythology.
As a non-American can I just state that what has come across has been descriptions (rather than necessarily explanations - a mythology is an explanation of actions and beliefs rather than something that needs explanation in itself) of a range of mythologies. The mythologies of America are no more monolithic than the people of America, which since there's such a wide range of beliefs is as it should be (the same, of course, is true of any other large national group).
I tend to think of mythology as deep stories that help you live.

IMHO, we *DO* have one overall American myth, with variations. I've periodically posted it, when we get to this point in a discussion.

This links to the "America First! Who's Second?" thread from a year ago.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
We periodically have a manifest destiny discussion. I went looking for one of my archived posts, which is below. It's from the "Neigh, Horseman Bree" thread, now in Oblivion. Other relevant posts by others are on that page, too.

quote:
Manifest destiny is basically "we're here, we won, so it's manifestly true that God destined it--YAYYYYYYY us".

Back in 2013, we had a thread called "Will there ever be effective gun control in the USA?". We got into the same sort of conversation, and I posted this:

quote:
As various of us Americans have pointed out on various related threads, American mythology is a large chunk of the problem. There are variations, but IMHO the main theme is something like this:

{Note: I DO NOT ENDORSE THIS!!!}

Our European ancestors were facing trials, tribulations, and persecutions back there. They couldn't follow their God-given faith. (Christianity, of course--nothing else counts.) So these Pilgrims bravely sailed to the New World, guided by the Manifest Destiny that God prepared for them. (Light to the world, etc.)

They bravely built settlements. They met and mingled with the local savages, who initially helped the Pilgrims learn how to live on this continent. But there was a falling out: the Indians didn't want to accept our clearly superior ways, nor acknowledge that God Had Given US This Place To Tame. So we fought them, which was unfortunate; but they clearly had it coming, because they weren't following God's will. Darn it, we tried to help the survivors out with education. We even gave them land to live on. We couldn't have been any fairer than that.

We civilized this country, with guns, determination, and grit, pushing ever westward. We cleared the land, and made it useful. We were pioneers. A man could work hard, get his own land, build a house with his own hands (and, sometimes, help from the neighbors). He had a God-given right to protect it from varmints, thieves, Injuns, and meddling governments. No one has the right to interfere with that--ever.

We're still pioneers. We're still manifestly destined. We lead the world in democracy, innovation, and military strength. We won't start a war (unless it's in our best interests); but, by gum, we will finish anyone who brings war to us.

May God bless and keep the United States of America, and may we always kick the asses of anyone who gets in our God-given way.

Does that make the situation a little clearer??


[ 18. February 2018, 03:21: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Do any of us believe that ... it would have been better because he could have only gotten a fraction of the victims...
Ummmm, YES.

You.
Fucking.
Asshole.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
romanlion

The last set of statistics I've seen for the UK (year ended March 2016) showed 577 homicides from all causes, and 26 homicides by gun. Homicide by gun is very rare in the UK, less than 1 per million over the years. Homicide from all causes is less than 10 per million. Although there are variations, the UK picture is quite typical of Western European countries. The only example of mass killing by gun in a school in the UK occurred in 1996 in Dunblane, when the murderer killed 16 pupils and 1 teacher.

The annual homicide by gun rate in the US was reported by the NY Times in June 2016 to be about 33 per million, or on average 27 per day. Total homicides per annum in the US are running at about 17000 per annum according to the FBI, or about 50 per million.

The population of the US is about 5 times that of the UK.

The statistics show that a US citizen is about 5 times more likely to be murdered than a UK citizen, and more than 50 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than a UK citizen.

These are startling differences.

I agree with you that a violent disturbed human being deprived of access to firearms might very well find some other way of achieving his murderous intention. But I think it is impossible to deny from the comparative statistics that the frequency of murders and mass murders is increased by the ease of access to guns.

Does that opinion make me a person with shit for brains.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Do any of us believe that ... it would have been better because he could have only gotten a fraction of the victims...
Ummmm, YES.

You.
Fucking.
Asshole.
Like anyone sees a post with a big red maple leaf at the top and gives a shit about the text below, you fucking blight...
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
]Anyone who's been here longer than 60 seconds knows you have shit for brains anyway so, no big surprise there.

I'll put you down for "less is more", got it.
You cannot actually spark two brain cells to connect and actually defend your pitiful post so you resort to insult. Jesus but you are a tiresome, boring and worthless bellend aren't you?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
]Anyone who's been here longer than 60 seconds knows you have shit for brains anyway so, no big surprise there.

I'll put you down for "less is more", got it.
You cannot actually spark two brain cells to connect and actually defend your pitiful post so you resort to insult. Jesus but you are a tiresome, boring and worthless bellend aren't you?
Did you read that at all before posting?

Never mind the fucked up code.

If you admit to being drunk right now I won't judge you about it. I understand...
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
romanlion

The last set of statistics I've seen for the UK (year ended March 2016) showed 577 homicides from all causes, and 26 homicides by gun. Homicide by gun is very rare in the UK, less than 1 per million over the years. Homicide from all causes is less than 10 per million. Although there are variations, the UK picture is quite typical of Western European countries. The only example of mass killing by gun in a school in the UK occurred in 1996 in Dunblane, when the murderer killed 16 pupils and 1 teacher.

The annual homicide by gun rate in the US was reported by the NY Times in June 2016 to be about 33 per million, or on average 27 per day. Total homicides per annum in the US are running at about 17000 per annum according to the FBI, or about 50 per million.

The population of the US is about 5 times that of the UK.

The statistics show that a US citizen is about 5 times more likely to be murdered than a UK citizen, and more than 50 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than a UK citizen.

These are startling differences.

I agree with you that a violent disturbed human being deprived of access to firearms might very well find some other way of achieving his murderous intention. But I think it is impossible to deny from the comparative statistics that the frequency of murders and mass murders is increased by the ease of access to guns.

Does that opinion make me a person with shit for brains.
Not at all, but are you saying the world would've been a better place had we just stuck with the crown?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
No. The break with the crown and the establishment of an independent USA were good and necessary. I'm not proud of the UK's colonial history.

I think you might have done better to stick to the original intention of the Second Amendment, but that's water under the bridge now. I recognise the impossibility for the USA of moving to the tightly regulated ownership and use of guns which is in place in the UK, unless there is a massive cultural and political shift.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

Do any of us believe that were it not for the existence of guns there wouldn't have been an issue here?
Actually, yes.
Anyone who's been here longer than 60 seconds knows you have shit for brains anyway so, no big surprise there.

I'll put you down for "less is more", got it.
Why not go the whole hog? If you're going to insist that guns aren't the problem, allow the sale of high explosives, artillery, and ricin.

After all, what's the difference between killing with a knife and taking out the sports hall with a HEAT round?

Or are you some kind of unAmerican traitor?

[ 18. February 2018, 07:46: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Do any of us believe that were it not for the existence of guns there wouldn't have been an issue here? That if only a particular utensil had been unavailable to the sociopath it would have been better because he could have only gotten a fraction of the victims with a bat, or a hammer, or knives
If this individual, and all the other individuals like him over recent years, didn't have easy access to guns then the issues wouldn't have been the same. That's obvious to everyone. A gun allows someone to inflict death and injury from a distance (whether that's from an upper floor of a hotel shooting into a concert crowd, or shooting through doors and windows, and even walls). With a knife or club they'd need to get right next to their victims, a closed door becomes a barrier to get through. Also a gun is much more lethal, it's not that easy to kill with a knife or club - you need physical strength and knowledge of where to strike (not that life changing injuries are that much better).

I'm sure any normal person (ie: someone other than you) would be delighted if the US culture changed such that any incident with a knife in a school became national news, a cause to reopen discussion about whether there were ways of helping disturbed youngsters using household utensils to cut people rather than vegetables. Rather than the insanity where many times kids get shot at schools and it doesn't get beyond the local press.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not a fan of Westerns, but it is hard to escape the conclusion from US movies that guns (or lethal assualt) are the ultimate solution to everything at the hands of the good guys, an ultimate solution that extends to extrajudicial killing as praiseworthy, heroic even.
We need better stories. It's something that has been preying on my mind for a while, but the number of narratives that rely on the 'good' physically overcoming the 'bad' is pretty overwhelming, and it's often very difficult to think of a different denouement - one that will satisfy both editors and readers.
I think the so-called revisionist western was in part a reply to gung-ho westerns of the past. In fact, Unforgiven would probably be termed revisionist, although the solutions are still found at the point of a gun. An early revisionist film is The Ox-Bow Incident, which shows the perils of rushing to judgment (two men wrongly hung for cattle-rustling).

However, one can still criticize this sub-genre as retaining many elements, e.g. lots of patriarchal stuff. However, there are of course, revisions of this, gay westerns, or westerns with female leading parts.

I don't know if it's an exhausted genre or not. Every time it's written off, it bounces back. Personal note, I'm a fan.
Various:

--Yes, Westerns usually push the idea that guns and violence are the ultimate way to have the power to end a bad situation. There's also the idea that some locations might not have a sheriff--or even laws. If they do, the only judge they *might* have access to is a circuit-rider, who periodically follows a certain route and takes care of cases at each stop. I'm not sure how accurate that is. One common view of the Old West (or any pioneer area) is that people had to be prepared to protect themselves and their property, and to settle problems on their own.

Hence guns, and the attachment to them. That view says that guns are the way you save yourself, if you're the only one around--dark street, home invasion, car jacking, attempted rape, stalker, walking in on a crime (like the convenience store robbery I mentioned earlier on the thread), mugging, etc.


--I like some Westerns, too. I grew up when there were *lots* of them on TV. Some local retro stations run lots of them.

I saw a new-to-me one yesterday--the film "Purgatory". Outlaws stumble into the town of Refuge, where things are not necessarily what they seem, and residents are there for a reason. It's amazingly good.

The film "Angel and the Badman" is one way to think through the gun question. A gunman (John Wayne) is sick/injured, and is rescued by a Quaker family. Really, really good.

"Briscoe County Jr." was a quirky, fascinating, and short-lived Western series. The theme song has been used for sports TV programs.

And, of course, there's "The Wild, Wild West" (the original TV series), which is a sci-fi Western. Sometimes sexist, but otherwise good.


--And yes, we do need different stories.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Good points DT.

As for British Colonialism being to blame for spree killings, random shooters, right-wing fuckwits and a World Superpower that allows its population easy access to lethal weapons? Can we not just get over this?

History is fucking history, it’s a done deal. Blame Napoleon, Blame Ghengis Khan, the Roman Empire, Adam and Eve. Blame who like, it will not escape the fact that this is a here and now problem for America. Write out a new law today it will begin to rectify a patently ridiculous situation starting from tomorrow .
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Politically the pendulum has swung such that any legislation restricting the purchase of firearms is almost irrelevant to the discussion for at least a decade.

The only potentially productive paths forward for the foreseeable future are related to culture, health care, law enforcement, and relational data integration.

Everyone was aware of this kid in Florida.

His contemporaries, school administrators, local and federal law enforcement.

His schoolmates admit openly that they expected it, talked about it. The police had been to his house on average every two months for the last five years. The FBI received a tip from a person familiar with the piece of shit on January 5th of this year that he was erratic, owned a gun, and was a potential school shooter! They never even forwarded that information to the regional field office.

Do any of us believe that were it not for the existence of guns there wouldn't have been an issue here? That if only a particular utensil had been unavailable to the sociopath it would have been better because he could have only gotten a fraction of the victims with a bat, or a hammer, or knives or explosives thereby reducing the statistical likelihood of one of the victims being ours?
Faeces calling the dung shit surely Darling? Just wait till you get home!

And the solution is BIGGER MORE INTRUSIVE GOVERNMENT?! Give everyone a tactical nuke I say. Wired to their pulse.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
romanlion

The last set of statistics I've seen for the UK (year ended March 2016) showed 577 homicides from all causes, and 26 homicides by gun. <snip>

Does that opinion make me a person with shit for brains.
Not at all, but are you saying the world would've been a better place had we just stuck with the crown?
It's fairly clear that what Barnabas62 is saying is that a nation which has tight controls on personal fire-arm ownership has fewer bodies in coffins at the end of the day, compared to a nation which doesn't.

The point that a really determined psychopath could always get their hands on a weapon regardless of gun controls is perfectly fair. And one does wonder how the FBI were unable to trace, as they claim, the potential shooter when his posts were flagged up.

But there's no denying that ease of access, including legitimate ease of access, to deadly fire-power is a hugely significant - and yet potentially redeemable - factor in why there are so many Americans being murdered in this way, compared, proportionally, to other countries. This isn't a bad thing to draw people's attention to, surely.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
and lets not forget that in October last year a bloke killed 58 people and injured 851 people from a 32nd floor window in 10 minutes. That's not happening if he's armed with a crossbow or knife, or even if he had the sort of weapon most people would use to go hunting. Source
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Wow

Well done those children. Let this indeed be a turning point.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Killing people with guns has to be good for business. Business is the only thing. Nothing else makes sense.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Emma Gonzalez, a senior at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, made a speech that has given me hope that the next generation will actually make changes for us.

It's too long (about 12 minutes) to link here but it is well worth a listen.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Anselmina

One of the more remarkable comparators in the stats is that in the US, homicide by gun amounts to over 60% of total homicides. In the UK in 2015/6, the percentage was less than 5%. Over the years it fluctuates between 5 and 10%.

Another way of looking at that is that if you remove homicide by gun from both UK and US statistics, the US homicide rate is about twice the UK rate. Whereas with gun deaths included, the US rate is at least 5 times the UK rate.

Those figures really do emphasise the comparative risk factors. About 4 times as many US citizens are killed by guns every year as died from terrorism on 9/11.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Killing people with guns has to be good for business. Business is the only thing. Nothing else makes sense.
Yes. The NRA is funded mostly by gun manufacturers. Hence their rote response to each and every tragedy: more guns. If only those kids had been packing heat! What about the teachers, they should all have guns -- the state won't pay for their crayons and construction paper, but it ought to pay for their pistols. The gun manufacturers are full of joy every time a massacre occurs. They batten upon misery and grief, the priests of Moloch happily conducting the child sacrifice.

[ 18. February 2018, 14:23: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
romanlion

The last set of statistics I've seen for the UK (year ended March 2016) showed 577 homicides from all causes, and 26 homicides by gun. <snip>

Does that opinion make me a person with shit for brains.
Not at all, but are you saying the world would've been a better place had we just stuck with the crown?
It's fairly clear that what Barnabas62 is saying is that a nation which has tight controls on personal fire-arm ownership has fewer bodies in coffins at the end of the day, compared to a nation which doesn't.
Moaninlion's raison d etre is winding up lefties. Facts and reason are not relevant to him.
quote:

The point that a really determined psychopath could always get their hands on a weapon regardless of gun controls is perfectly fair. And one does wonder how the FBI were unable to trace, as they claim, the potential shooter when his posts were flagged up.
The FBI have released a statement acknowledging that protocol was not followed after they received a tip about the shooter.
The politicisation of that by the GOP is a smokescreen for the real problem. As is mental health.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Emma Gonzalez, a senior at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, made a speech that has given me hope that the next generation will actually make changes for us.

It's too long (about 12 minutes) to link here but it is well worth a listen.
There's no prohibition on the length of a link, though a note on the total running time/length of document is always welcome so that folk are aware of the investment they're being asked to make.

DT
HH
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by roman lion:

quote:
Do any of us believe that were it not for the existence of guns there wouldn't have been an issue here? That if only a particular utensil had been unavailable to the sociopath it would have been better because he could have only gotten a fraction of the victims with a bat, or a hammer, or knives or explosives thereby reducing the statistical likelihood of one of the victims being ours?
No, you great looby, it's not the existence of guns, it's the availability of guns. When I was much younger I walked home with a friend of mine who confessed, under the influence of a pint of cider, that his great fantasy was to go postal. I went home and slept my pint of cider off, because there was no way, in the United Kingdom, that he could have laid hands on a firearm. This was before the Dunblane massacre in 1996, which, by the way, was the last school shooting we've had. Yours is the last school shooting until, what, next Tuesday? If we were living in the US, I might well be dealing with the guilt of not having reported it to someone or whoever I reported it to, would be dealing with the guilt of having not been able to do anything about it, because talking bollocks about enacting a massacre, unlike a massacre itself, is not exactly an indictable offence. You can have adequate gun control or you can have the mass murder of innocents. You've made your choice, don't expect fucking validation as a bonus.

I think I've come to the conclusion that Americans who defend their gun laws are like Sub-saharan Africans defending FGM. Yes, we get it's your fucking culture, but it doesn't stop it being morally depraved. And yes, I also get, not all Sub-saharan Africans or, indeed, Americans. But next time Ryan or Trump or that piece of shit from the NRA turns up on the telly, remember he's basically the equivalent of some Imam from the Sahel telling us that taking a razor blade to his daughters lady bits is the best way to protect her chastity.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
A link to Emma Gonzales.


Like Twilight, it gave me hope. The facts are on the side of the passion.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The NRA is funded mostly by gun manufacturers.
And Winchester recently filed for bankruptcy. Let that sink in. Paranoid gun loonies buying tons of weapons against the day Obama (they still fear him) comes to take them away, and one of the US's largest and oldest manufacturers is going belly-up. How can that be? Can they have sold all the guns they can to the shrinking percent of the American population that owns guns? Saturated the paranoidi market, have they?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The FBI have released a statement acknowledging that protocol was not followed after they received a tip about the shooter. The politicisation of that by the GOP is a smokescreen for the real problem. As is mental health.
Yes. I can do no better than quote the excellent Ms Gonzales on this point. It is quite a long quote, but well worth reading.

quote:
And how about we stop blaming the victims for something that was the student's fault, the fault of the people who let him buy the guns in the first place, those at the gun shows, the people who encouraged him to buy accessories for his guns to make them fully automatic, the people who didn't take them away from him when they knew he expressed homicidal tendencies, and I am not talking about the FBI. I'm talking about the people he lived with. I'm talking about the neighbors who saw him outside holding guns.

 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Yes, because if there's one thing a neighbor should do, it's walk up to somebody with an AR-15 and tell him he needs to give it up. That's safe.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Killing people with guns has to be good for business. Business is the only thing. Nothing else makes sense.
Yes. The NRA is funded mostly by gun manufacturers.
What's your source for that? It's not supported by the Wikipedia article on the NRA.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
2012? 2013? Nobody has polled public opinion on the NRA in 5 years?
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Yes. The NRA is funded mostly by gun manufacturers.
What's your source for that? It's not supported by the Wikipedia article on the NRA.
Indeed, this article confirms that the NRA is primarily funded by small donations from individuals. Hundreds of thousands of selfishly paranoid individuals.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Perhaps it's more accurate to say that the NRA supports gun manufacturers?

IJ
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
One thing about the FBI tip puzzles me. If you have a concern, why by-pass the local or state police? I'd have thought that contacting local police is what you would do, even if the threatened crime may come under Federal jurisdiction.

mousethief has a good point about risks to neighbour and family, but there's a lot of room between doing nothing and outright confrontation of an armed disturbed individual. No doubt there will be further information about any attempted preventative steps taken by neighbours and friends.

[ 18. February 2018, 20:50: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
I've been a Florida resident for over forty years. In that period of time, I've seen (state) mental health facilities disappear. If a person is Baker Acted, I believe the period of time they can be held in a treatment center is 72 hours. Not much can be done in that little period of time, IMO.

Even if the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooter had been diagnosed with mental illness, I doubt he would have been treated, or if going to outpatient treatment, would he have continued on his own?

Here is some information on the terrible state of mental illness treatment in Florida. I wish there was a way to eliminate the large picture at the top of the page I just linked to.

If assault weapons were eliminated, I think that would be a good step in the right direction. If all guns were strongly regulated, with comprehensive background checks, again, a step in the right direction.

If a person was bound and determined to kill people with weapons other than a gun, say, a knife or rock or rope, the victim(s) would have a fair chance of escaping, or of at least attempting to fight off the person trying to kill them.

A coward uses a weapon that can kill people from many feet away, with a bullet that can fly faster than they can move to avoid it. An evil coward can shoot someone without even looking at his or her face, with a weapon that can send multiple bullets tearing through multiple people in a short period of time.

I know that I'm preaching to the choir. Well, most of the choir.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I have a gun nut friend who insists that every possible stricture we propose -- insurance, say, or licensing -- is impossible because it penalizes the innocent. I have argued that it is not penalizing that poor innocent little eight-year-old, to decree that he is too young to drive a car.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
By that logic, nobody should have to buy car insurance until after their first accident. After all, it's wrong to "penalize" the "innocent" by making them buy insurance. [Roll Eyes]

When it comes to gun owners and drivers, innocence is irrelevant. Everyone is a risk.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, because if there's one thing a neighbor should do, it's walk up to somebody with an AR-15 and tell him he needs to give it up. That's safe.
I agree. I love Gonzale's passionate speech, but don't agree with everything she says.

The local police probably already knew Nikolas Cruz was dangerous after being called to his mother's house many times, so there would be little point in the neighbor calling them. The family who took him in should be praised for their charity, not held responsible for what he did. They may not have known he had the gun. If they did know and kicked him out for having it, people would be saying they triggered his killing spree.


Anytime we start to blame friends, teachers and neighbors for not vigilantly watching the rest of us, we're in danger of losing much more important rights than the right to own a gun.

If we would simply ban guns we wouldn't have to worry about watching each other out the back window, reading our student's social media postings, or whether or not to send our children to the psychiatrist. Doctors wouldn't be put in the position of breaking their patient's trust. We wouldn't have to frighten our children with active shooter training or lock our church doors.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, because if there's one thing a neighbor should do, it's walk up to somebody with an AR-15 and tell him he needs to give it up. That's safe.
I agree. I love Gonzale's passionate speech, but don't agree with everything she says.

The local police probably already knew Nikolas Cruz was dangerous after being called to his mother's house many times, so there would be little point in the neighbor calling them. The family who took him in should be praised for their charity, not held responsible for what he did. They may not have known he had the gun.
I saw a news interview today -- think it was ABC News -- where these folks said they were gun-owners themselves, and required him to keep his AR-15 in a locked cabinet to which they believed they had the only key.

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
[QUOTE] Anytime we start to blame friends, teachers and neighbors for not vigilantly watching the rest of us, we're in danger of losing much more important rights than the right to own a gun.
This.

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
[QUOTE]If we would simply ban guns we wouldn't have to worry about watching each other out the back window, reading our student's social media postings, or whether or not to send our children to the psychiatrist. Doctors wouldn't be put in the position of breaking their patient's trust. We wouldn't have to frighten our children with active shooter training or lock our church doors.
Also this -- although I fear a bloody battle might have to be fought to accomplish this, with no guarantee the "banners" would win.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
If anyone tries to take away guns, by force or law, there will be violence.

Law would disturb even the people who store and handle their guns safely, but deeply believe in their right to have them.

Force--whether that's uniformed officers calmly knocking on doors in a low-key way, or storming in, or worse--would lead to a lot of violence. Think civil war--maybe not a formal one, with uniforms and such, but lots and lots of skirmishes. Pro private guns folks would be communicating and organizing online. Then there are the private militias, and all the other folks who are just waiting for something like this to heat up.

Law enforcement doesn't always proceed well or wisely. And if we have one more Ruby Ridge incident (Wikipedia)...
[Paranoid] [Votive]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The NRA is funded mostly by gun manufacturers.
And Winchester recently filed for bankruptcy. Let that sink in. Paranoid gun loonies buying tons of weapons against the day Obama (they still fear him) comes to take them away, and one of the US's largest and oldest manufacturers is going belly-up. How can that be? Can they have sold all the guns they can to the shrinking percent of the American population that owns guns? Saturated the paranoidi market, have they?
Maybe the ghost of Sarah Winchester got to them? [Biased]

Possible major SPOILERS for the new Helen Mirren film about Sarah Winchester.
.
.
.
.
There are differing stories and perspectives of Sarah (real woman). The version I read, long ago, was that she married the heir to the Winchester rifle fortune. He died. In her grief (and possibly after some incidents), she went to see a psychic/medium.

She was informed that she would be haunted by the ghosts of people killed by Winchester rifles, unless she did x, y, and z.

That turned out to be building Winchester House, a home for them. (Now a tourist attraction.) All sorts of strange things about the place--e.g., dead-end halls. She's been depicted as being quite manic about it.

However...I also read that she subscribed to a professional architecture magazine. So, whatever weirdness/madness was going on, it wasn't *just* that.

Anyway, if there happens to be any truth to any of that, or even if she just felt weighed down with guilt about the source of her inheritance, she'd be the right person to pay a call on the Winchester board of directors.
[Biased]
.
.
.
.
/end Possible major SPOILERS for the new Helen Mirren film about Sarah Winchester.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Think civil war--maybe not a formal one, with uniforms and such, but lots and lots of skirmishes.
I suspect that might differ only in degree from what we have now.

Police fairly frequently gunned down by civilians;
Civilians, especially civilians of color, frequently gunned down by police;
Standoffs where some citizen is holed up in his (usually male) home, holding spouse / children hostage with firearms (3 such incidents in the last week in my region of a rural, low-population, low-crime-rate state);
Road rage incidents involving firearms (2-3 in the last month or so in my region).
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Here's the thing about friends and family of the mentally disturbed. There's always a journey of discovery and interaction and consultations, with medics, maybe law enforcement. Getting an accurate diagnosis can be wearing; it often seems like you are fighting denial in the system that your family member or neighbour is outside the normal range. Maybe they just need this pill or that pill to take the edge off?

When the behaviour is mixed with violent or psychopathic tendencies, it seems to be the case that they have to do actual harm before there is a breakthrough. Before that, the various systems seem to have a tendency to encourage family support and careful monitoring. For families on the receiving end, it can be a long, frustrating, worrying process. We've known several families go through this.

The law provides maximum protection for freedom unless crimes are committed and obtaining a medical diagnosis of dangerous mental instability, justifying loss of personal freedom, seems very difficult. A high bar is set. Often a determining factor is scarce resource. A very limited number of secure places, properly staffed.

I'm not sure the preventive side, diagnosis of dangerous instability sufficient to justify loss of freedom, works all that well in the UK. I have no clear understanding of how it works in the US. The impression I get is that some really serious lawbreaking almost always has to happen first.

Emma Gonzales' observation was on the money in this comment. Would he have been able to wreak the same level of havoc with a knife? The primary issue is gun control.

On reflection I think she overstated the case re neighbour and family preventive action. Passion got in the way of clarity. But I am pretty sure the question of converted effective preventive action needs a serious critical look. How do family, neighbours, schools, medics, social workers, schools, police, work together cooperatively on preventing things getting this far.

[ 19. February 2018, 07:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I am heartened and encouraged by the students at that Florida school. I wish them well. I hope their nascent crusade sparks something big. They are the true American Patriots right now.

The stupid thing is that there are plenty of ways to restrict the distribution of military style weapons and protect people's right to own a gun. I hope that the NRA is forced to test every damn one of them in the Supreme Court, because that would mean that they got through congress, and that would mean that the NRA has lost.

And I will blubber like it's the last 15 minutes of the film Persuasion.

GOD BLESS YOU AMERICA, and keep you safe.
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
This in the Guardian today. Needs no comment.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Florida Shooting: I cannot even begin to imagine
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:

And I will blubber like it's the last 15 minutes of the film Persuasion.

I'll blubber like Emma Thompson in the proposal scene in
Sense and Sensibility
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I really wish people would stop treating shooting a lot of people as evidence in and of itself of mental disturbance.

Unless you want to turn the jails into mental hospitals. Because that seems to be the logical premise: if you did something really bad you simply must be mentally ill. You couldn't possibly be an evil asshole with doses of racism/misogyny/insert as applicable based on the kind of person you decided to kill.

And in a case like this where the perpetrator is still alive, what is this going to do to a trial? You've got the leaders of the land announcing their diagnosis.

I'm well aware that there's evidence linking criminal behaviour and brain function, but we have to treat this as a serious issue rather than a glib diagnosis being doled out on social media: where is the line between behaviour you ARE legally responsible for, because you're of sane mind but chose to behave as an evil bastard, versus behaviour you are not legally responsible for because you're mentally disturbed?

Lately it seems that if you're a white bloke who goes on a shooting rampage, people are extremely ready to start suggesting that your mental state is compromised, rather than accept the possibility that you chose by your own will to be murderous.

Perhaps my favourite meme to come from this particular event, though, is an observation that on the (less frequent) occasions that a Muslim does this, their sanity is not in question. The meme then queries whether there's something about the Muslim diet that's the cause of their unusually good mental health.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
The family

that took Cruz in is telling their story now. It's everything we've been talking about in a nutshell. The Sneads are nice, caring people. They take in a friend of their son's who has lost his mother. She takes him for therapy but he doesn't think he can afford the medication. They are kind people, but he has several guns he keeps in a locked cabinet. Mr. Snead makes sure Nikolas keeps his guns in a locked cabinet, too. They're all about gun safety. [Roll Eyes] [Tear]

{A million times, yes, to what Orfeo just said. The tendency to call bad people mentally ill just increases stigma and further confuses people about what brain disease really is.}

[ 19. February 2018, 10:59: Message edited by: Twilight ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Overlapping categories, orfeo? Some violent people are sane, some are insane. Some insane people are violent, some are non-violent.

It doesn't seem wrong to me to say that those identified as having psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies (both of those are classified as mental disorders) are best spotted early, since they fall into the potentially dangerous category. But that won't identify all the potentially dangerous. Some people just snap under pressure and do dreadful things.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
I have an American friend on Facebook who used to be a Republican. She will never vote GOP again, I suspect. The craven enabling of Trump and the apologetists for his evil is the reason.

Anyway, she posted on Facebook this morning Matthew 2:18
quote:
NIV:
“A voice is heard in Ramah,
weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more.”
Now, of course Biblical scholars among you will know that it has been argued that Matthew is misapplying the OT here but the notion of a parent who cannot be comforted because her children are no more is a powerful one and it's clearly applicable to the Herod genocide of boys under 2 years of age; even if Jeremiah is not specifically prophesying about the birth of Christ.

She - like me - is a fan of Michael Card. Reading that verse in the context of the latest US shooting reminded me of his song Spirit of the Age which refers to this verse and has this lyric:
quote:
Now every age has heard it, the voice that speaks from Hell: "Sacrifice your children and for you it will be well"
I think that sums it up nicely.

It's not as though there aren't measures that reduce gun crime. There are.
It's not as though it hasn't happened before. It has.

Ultimately it is as simple as this: The US nation is prepared to sacrifice it's children for personal freedom or the rights of gun owners or the right to self-defence or whatever other half-arsed excuse the NRA will come up with next...

It's a choice; sensible gun-control laws or the deaths of children.

The song continues:
quote:
The subtle serpent's lying, His dark and ruthless rage
Behold, it is revealed to be the spirit of the age

The voices heard of weeping and of wailing
History speaks of it on every page
Of innocent and helpless little babies
Offerings to the spirit of the age
AFZ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
quote:
The subtle serpent's lying, His dark and ruthless rage
Behold, it is revealed to be the spirit of the age
What a wonderfully accurate and concise description of The Orange Lord Of Modern Mordor.... [Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Actually, one could extend that description to the Orange Lord's evil host of orcs, toadies, wormtongues, and lickspittles....

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I've posted elsewhere that America is in the thrall of Moloch. Where is the prophet who will rise up and denounce the false god?

Back in Florida, the school system knew for years that he was troubled, and tried to help. Do we want the school system to be the front line on mental illness? And of course in defense, since the NRA proposes to arm all the teachers.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
It isn't only school systems facing obstacles to getting help.

Try being the parent, in my state, of a child with an already-diagnosed mental illness. Even if you are rolling in dough, have a Cadillac health-care plan, and are willing/able to shell out megabucks for private care, you'll face obstacles.

You won't be able to commit this child to an institutional setting unless the child is a danger to himself or others at the time when committal is sought. Your daughter, recently diagnosed with schizophrenia and still working through the often lengthy trial-and-error process of figuring out which meds work and at what dosages (plus these protocols can change in unpredictable ways and at unpredictable times even when the patient is supremely compliant with the regimen), becomes temporarily convinced that you are the devil and tries to stab you with a breadknife as you lie sleeping Thursday night.

So sorry; it's now Tuesday afternoon, and your daughter is not currently expressing any such belief or intention; the episode has passed and/or the meds have been adjusted. She'll be returned to your care. The fact that you and your partner/spouse (should you have one) now feel you must take turns standing watch over one another in fear of your lives, well, what did you expect? You are her parent(s) and she's your responsibility.

In addition, there's the school system to consider, which by law is required to educate your IDEA-eligible daughter in the least restrictive environment possible -- namely, their classrooms and your home. Sooner or later, someone on your IEP "team" (I use the term loosely) is almost sure to decide that the real problem here is you -- that is, you're the crazy one, or that you are driving your kid crazy -- and will block any suggestions you make during your child's IEP meetings where services and accommodations are agreed to.

This person will be aided and abetted by school district authorities, whose primary objectives on any IEP team are to avoid spending money and to resist providing services or accommodations.

I feel sorry for the Sneads. First, with ZERO legal authority to be part of Cruz's special ed team (assuming he had one, and if he didn't, this school district is surely at fault), there was virtually nothing they could do. Second, it seems possible they were in WAY over their heads with this kid; did they have any understanding of the problems he faced with the school? Third, people are now going to blame them.

And it's all much, much worse when a child has mental illness and has yet to be diagnosed.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
It isn't only school systems facing obstacles to getting help.

Try being the parent, in my state, of a child with an already-diagnosed mental illness. Even if you are rolling in dough, have a Cadillac health-care plan, and are willing/able to shell out megabucks for private care, you'll face obstacles.

You won't be able to commit this child to an institutional setting unless the child is a danger to himself or others at the time when committal is sought. Your daughter, recently diagnosed with schizophrenia and still working through the often lengthy trial-and-error process of figuring out which meds work and at what dosages (plus these protocols can change in unpredictable ways and at unpredictable times even when the patient is supremely compliant with the regimen), becomes temporarily convinced that you are the devil and tries to stab you with a breadknife as you lie sleeping Thursday night.

So sorry; it's now Tuesday afternoon, and your daughter is not currently expressing any such belief or intention; the episode has passed and/or the meds have been adjusted. She'll be returned to your care. The fact that you and your partner/spouse (should you have one) now feel you must take turns standing watch over one another in fear of your lives, well, what did you expect? You are her parent(s) and she's your responsibility.

In addition, there's the school system to consider, which by law is required to educate your IDEA-eligible daughter in the least restrictive environment possible -- namely, their classrooms and your home. Sooner or later, someone on your IEP "team" (I use the term loosely) is almost sure to decide that the real problem here is you -- that is, you're the crazy one, or that you are driving your kid crazy -- and will block any suggestions you make during your child's IEP meetings where services and accommodations are agreed to.

This person will be aided and abetted by school district authorities, whose primary objectives on any IEP team are to avoid spending money and to resist providing services or accommodations.

I feel sorry for the Sneads. First, with ZERO legal authority to be part of Cruz's special ed team (assuming he had one, and if he didn't, this school district is surely at fault), there was virtually nothing they could do. Second, it seems possible they were in WAY over their heads with this kid; did they have any understanding of the problems he faced with the school? Third, people are now going to blame them.

And it's all much, much worse when a child has mental illness and has yet to be diagnosed.
No editing of your post-- this needs to be read and reread in full)


[Votive] [Votive] [Votive]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The GOP gutted mental health care benefits, too. To now blame parents, teachers and others seems especially cruel.

In other developments, Fox News alleges that grieving Florida teens are in the pay of somebody. Or it was orchestrated. Or something. Stay classy, conservative media!

And, a number of congressmen are raising money for their campaigns by raffling off guns! See the little tab at the top of this guys page, to register for your very own AR-15.

Here are third graders selling the raffle tickets.

And another GOP candidate raffles off an assault rifle.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Actually, one could extend that description to the Orange Lord's evil host of orcs, toadies, wormtongues, and lickspittles....

IJ
Careful now! [Two face]
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
The first 11 minutes of John Oliver is all relevant and distinctly on point. (The rest is a mash-up of various shows)
[Killing me] [Mad] [Mad] [Overused]

AFZ
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The family

that took Cruz in is telling their story now. It's everything we've been talking about in a nutshell. The Sneads are nice, caring people. They take in a friend of their son's who has lost his mother. She takes him for therapy but he doesn't think he can afford the medication. They are kind people, but he has several guns he keeps in a locked cabinet. Mr. Snead makes sure Nikolas keeps his guns in a locked cabinet, too. They're all about gun safety. [Roll Eyes] [Tear]

{A million times, yes, to what Orfeo just said. The tendency to call bad people mentally ill just increases stigma and further confuses people about what brain disease really is.}
I'm massively projecting my own feelings for another family in a similar situation to the Sneads, in that they too 'adopted' the long-time boyfriend of their daughter when his mother died. The Sneads went further than the family I know in taking the boy into their home. What charity! They saw need in front of them and acted.

Their story is a call to prayer.

On mental illness, I used to think that the whole crazy shooter thing would help to get better services for people like me. That was pure fantasy...
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The ever-contemptible Rush Limbaugh accuses the bereaved students of capitalizing on the tragedy. He is BTW essentially the voice of the Republican voter.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
The Sneads went further than the family I know in taking the boy into their home. What charity! They saw need in front of them and acted.
On TV this morning, Mr. Snead said he knew that "Nick" had guns and was bringing them into the house, but he didn't know how many or what kind. "A few hunting rifles" is what I believe he said. He also said he insisted that they be kept locked in a safe for which he "thought" he had the only key.

When asked if he knew Nick had an assault rifle, he said he believed he did but that he used it only for hunting. When asked if he thought that was justifiable, he replied, "It's his right."

He said he's a gun advocate himself, and that knowing now what he knows, he would not have acted any differently.

If that's charity, then I'll help myself to something from the plate when it's passed rather than putting something in.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Whilst still having some residual sympathy for the Sneads, I think Miss Amanda has highlighted the lack of joined-up thinking to which Usania's worship of the Gun God has led.

[Votive] for a once-great country that has clearly gone bonkers.

IJ
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
What impresses me is how little this family seemed to know -- or even inquire -- about this young man. While the charitable impulse may be admirable, the lack of any apparent forethought, or even curiosity, about this guy's habits, his possessions, his values, his interests and activities, etc., boggles the mind.

Is it "uncharitable" to try to suss out what your family is taking on when bringing a new member into the fold? Or is it a sort of arrogance -- whatever happens, we can deal with it?

I'm trying to imagine bringing a near-adult person into my household without first getting in touch with his school or checking with the guy's neighbors or other relatives to get a handle on who he is and what I might be heading into.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Especially in a country where access to weapons of mass murder seems so easy.

I mean, it's not as if this sort of thing hasn't happened before.....

[Disappointed]

In all fairness, of course, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

IJ
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
[Votive] for a once-great country that has clearly gone bonkers.
It is sometimes said that America's today will be Britain’s tomorrow.

Thank goodness that firm action was taken on automatic firearms post Hungerford, and again post Dunblane, and that the whimperings of our own gun lobby was flatly ignored.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is what it was like, less than two years ago.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
This blog post is worthy reading, just ignore the title it you don't like the word in the title of a blog post, though you probably do like it because it's the same word in the title of this thread.

quote:
My knee jerk reaction is to consider weapons like the AR-15 no big deal because it is my default setting. It’s where my training lies. It is my normal, because I learned how to fire a rifle IN THE ARMY.... those targets weren’t shaped like deer. They were shaped like people....

 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Thank you, both.

What Obama did.
[Overused]

What t does.
[Projectile]

IJ
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is what it was like, less than two years ago.
Beautiful.
[Tear]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I don't know much about the family that took Nick in. But, from a couple of things I saw, both parents are (ex- ?) military, and their son is friends with Nick.

So that might affect their attitude about guns. (Plus Army folks tend to be Republican.) And they may have felt they knew Nick well enough.

Someone (Brenda?) posted a link about how hard his teachers tried to get help for him. He's had trouble for a long, long time. After a lot of hard work by teachers and school district (?) folks, he finally got into a school for kids with emotional disturbances, and was there for a couple of years. Then, for some reason, he left and went back to regular school. I think it was after that that his adoptive father died. His adoptive mom died last fall. And he and his girlfriend broke up.

I wonder how old he was when he was relinquished for adoption. Lots of bad stuff can happen, even to a baby.

Also he was reportedly diagnosed with ADHD and ASD. Not that those make a person violent. But his whole life seems like a slow-moving train wreck, with lots of factors. People tried to stop the train, but nothing worked.

I'm not remotely excusing his actions. Just that lots of factors probably brought him to that point.
[Frown] [Tear] [Votive]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Miss Amanda you are ever the lady. Most of us would have used much stronger terms about Snead.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Another plethora of factors:

"Woman who cared for Florida shooter wants control of his inheritance" (NY Post).

Given that it's the NY Post, a grain or two of salt may be needed. But here's the gist:

--Nick and his brother were put in the care of a woman after their mom died.

--She eventually kicked him out over his gun collection.

--She stole money from him.

--After the shooting, she filed papers to be in charge of his inheritance. He gets $800k when he's 22.

--She also had his brother involuntarily committed. (I haven't followed the link to that, so I don't know why.)

I presume Nick lived with her before he lived with his friend's parents.

Good grief. [Mad]
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
A good reposit to the God is not allowed in schools meme.

AFZ

[ 21. February 2018, 07:28: Message edited by: alienfromzog ]
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
A good reposit to the God is not allowed in schools meme.

AFZ
Probably I meant riposte....
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
So, a proposed ban on bump stocks ....

It's something, though in terms of effectiveness at reducing the frequency of mass shootings and the death toll from guns I can't see how it could possibly be more effective than banning guns with a blue and pink polka dot paint job.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Trump's financial support in 2016 from the NRA amounted to $30 million, so anything more than a token gesture, agreed in confidence with the NRA, is not to be expected.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
[Votive] for a once-great country that has clearly gone bonkers.
It is sometimes said that America's today will be Britain’s tomorrow.

Thank goodness that firm action was taken on automatic firearms post Hungerford, and again post Dunblane, and that the whimperings of our own gun lobby was flatly ignored.
We don't really have a gun lobby, thank God, our own dear Armament Manufacturers make their living by either providing the armed services with their kit or selling stuff to other peoples armed forces. My recollection of the Hungerford massacre is that everyone let Douglas Hurd, who was Home Secretary at the time, get on with it and the only significant whimpering post-Dunblane, was on the part of the Duke of Edinburgh, who seemed to think that if guns were banned cricket bats would be next. Also the UK has no tradition of the frontier or the wild west and we did have about thirty years of an indigenous terrorist movement which, on a couple of occasions, came within an ace of taking out the British Government. I suspect that if The Donald spent five minutes cowering under machine gun fire, whilst the Secret Service were shooting back, he might rethink his views on gun control. A lot of gun violence in the US, AFAICS, involves black on black violence, which is probably why it's not an issue. I suspect that if there was a certain amount of black on Republican legislators gun violence that might change. You can imagine what this is doing to my inner ethicist.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Also the UK has no tradition of the frontier or the wild west
We also have more than a century of licensing of gun owners - combining both suitability of the owner and the justification for having a gun (with the particular gun owned for that purpose being suitable). We have effectively always had a requirement that to own a gun you needed to a) demonstrate a need for a gun, b) demonstrate that the gun you wanted to buy was suitable for your need (and, if you already had a gun you weren't replacing why you need two guns), and c) satisfy the local police or other officials that you're a suitable person to own a gun. What Hungerford and Dunblane did was tighten existing legislation (largely by classifying certain weapons as something no one had a need to own). AIUI you need a permit for each weapon, and when buying ammunition you need to produce that to show you legally own a gun that uses that ammunition. The permit also stipulates how the gun and ammunition are stored (separately, unloaded, in locked cabinets) and failure to comply with those stipulations means you lose the permit (a colleagues husband lost his shotgun permit when they were burgled and the cabinet storing the gun was broken open, he failed to keep the gun locked away).

Added to which, the law in the UK has always explicitly stated that self defence (or defence of property) is not a valid reason to own a gun.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
If we had your gun laws I would be content. So would a lot of students in Florida.

One of the awful things about the child system in the US is that there's a foster/adoption program all right. But it ends when you're 18. Boom, suddenly you have no support at all and you sink or swim. In the day when there was the demand for it you could enlist in the armed forces, or get a job in manufacturing or mines or farming. You could get a job with nothing but a strong back and good will. Now it's just about impossible. Contemplate your own 17 or 18 year old and imagine the kid out on its own.

This guy was 19 and troubled from early on. He may have had lots of help, two years ago. It all evaporated. He had no health insurance, no mental support services, no way to get housing or a job. And ... now all that's taken care of; he'll probably never be free again.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is what it was like, less than two years ago.
Trump isn't even worthy to lick Obama's shoes.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
From the BBC news report about the Florida students' protests:
quote:
The president, who is a strong gun rights advocate, will host students and teachers at the White House on Wednesday for a "listening session" on gun control.
Will he listen? Or, even if he does, will he do anything positive?

I hope they cover him with verbal shite, and give him HELL....

[Mad]

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
If he stays true to form he'll blurt out some egregious inapproriateness. I believe that they may have got him out of groping pussies, but I trust that all those girls have big sturdy leather handbags which they will keep tightly clasped front and center.

This is from the POST,
a FL official calling the students paid actors traveling from crisis to crisis. Mercifully, he was immediately fired. Alas, the right-wing conspiracy machine is grinding out a lot of stuff like this.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Despite the power of the NRA and the fear of House Reps in red districts, there are some signs of a sea change in public opinion. I'm hoping this isn't going to be a nine days wonder.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is not a new notion, but E.J. Dionne has more megaphone than me: removing the metal detectors and handbag searches at the US Capitol. They talk the talk, let them walk the walk and see how they like it instead of imposing it on all of us while they stay safe.

That was from the POST but this is from CNN, a free click: the Florida legislator refuses to discuss gun control but concentrates on banning porn.

Jennifer Rubin summarizes the latest Quinnipiac University poll for us, and says:

"American voters support stricter gun laws 66-31 percent, the highest level of support ever measured by the independent Quinnipiac University National Poll, with 50-44 percent support among gun owners and 62-35 percent support from white voters with no college degree and 58-38 percent support among white men.

Today’s result is up from a negative 47-50 percent measure of support in a December 23, 2015, survey . . . Support for universal background checks is itself almost universal, 97-2 percent, including 97-3 percent among gun owners. Support for gun control on other questions is at its highest level since the Quinnipiac University Poll began focusing on this issue in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre.”

That includes support for a ban on the sale assault weapons (67 percent to 29 percent) and a mandatory waiting period (83 percent to 14 percent) for all gun purchases. Unlike the National Rifle Association, voters say that if more people had guns we’d be less safe (59 percent to 33 percent) and want Congress to do more to reduce gun violence (75 percent to 17 percent). Seventy percent of Americans correctly say that “mass killings by U.S. citizens is a bigger problem than mass killings by people from other countries.”"

How long can Congress continue to defy the will of the people? Hmm, 200-odd days to November...
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
From the BBC news report about the Florida students' protests:
quote:
The president, who is a strong gun rights advocate, will host students and teachers at the White House on Wednesday for a "listening session" on gun control.
Will he listen? Or, even if he does, will he do anything positive?

I hope they cover him with verbal shite, and give him HELL....

[Mad]

IJ
His political genius is showing again. The back door is unlocked: background checks.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
Trump held a chat with kids from the Florida school today.

Expect to hear a lot of talk about "school safety" in the coming weeks from GOP members of congress when asked about what they are doing to solve this problem. Trump mused that an armed teacher could have stopped this shooting very quickly.

My teacher friends on Facebook are rather annoyed by this suggestion, for a number of understandable reasons. Some are asking if their guns and training would be paid for by the government, or if they would be on their own, as they are for many classroom supplies.

I was listening to my favorite drive-time hate listen a few weeks ago, a conservative program ironically dubbed "Rush to Reason." They had an expert on active shooter situations on. His advice was to find cover and stay down. Which, it seems to me, is in complete contrast with the President's proposal.

My mom was a teacher for about a year, during a moment in the 1970s when schools in this area were experiencing bomb scares. She remembers that a trainer came in, and told the teachers that their first job was to help the kids out of the building. After that, no kidding, they were told to re-enter the building and look for the bomb. The more things change... [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Here's a dazzler, a church in PA which is going to have a blessing of the guns. The friend who posted this adds that we really don't need Russian bots to troll us, we're nutty enough on our own.

This will cost you a POST link, Alexandra Petri explaining why the pain and activism of teens is being deplored by the gun nuts. She is the POST humor colomnist; if you want a more serious version here it is.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Arming teachers?

A few years back, the community college where I teach hired an adjunct who had been teaching abroad -- Japan, maybe? Anyway, he demanded that all his classes be on the same two days of the week; demanded extra classes; came in and started ordering other adjuncts (including me) to do his xeroxing for him and setting up tutoring appointments for his students (they're supposed to make their own appointments), etc.

A couple of weeks after the semester started, students were coming to the writing center complaining of being screamed at, sworn at, kicked out of class, etc. One day, when I was teaching in one of two adjacent computer labs, I could hear him yelling at his class next door. After setting my class up with their assignment, I went over & stuck my head through the door and asked him for a moment. Result? He started screaming and swearing at me.

He didn't make it through the semester, thank God. But imagining what he might have done if armed . . . no, thanks.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
OK this is a good one. From the POST, two policemen buy a ticket home for a Florida woman who was trying to get back to the memorial services in time. She attended Parkland HS and knew the kids who were killed. They chipped in out of their own pockets.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I've come across several "could've been a school shooting, but someone stepped in" stories, since Florida.

IIRC, one was a woman reporting her grandson. Another kid brought a gun to school, but it didn't go further. And a boy was overheard talking about doing something. Cops went to his home, and found a bunch of guns.

[Votive]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is another encouraging link, because we need them, and it's free. A slightly profane admonition to the high school students to ignore the adults.

We taught them this. We gave them the books, about Frodo and Katniss and Harry Potter. We let them watch Supergirl and Buffy. They know that it's teens who have to save the world from the monsters. I am so proud of them, and I hope some of them grow up soon enough for me to vote for them. Because you can be they'll stay involved.

[ 22. February 2018, 01:54: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
From the BBC news report about the Florida students' protests:
quote:
The president, who is a strong gun rights advocate, will host students and teachers at the White House on Wednesday for a "listening session" on gun control.
Will he listen? Or, even if he does, will he do anything positive?

I hope they cover him with verbal shite, and give him HELL....

[Mad]

IJ
His political genius is showing again. The back door is unlocked: background checks.
Is it politics anymore? Or something else.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I've come across several "could've been a school shooting, but someone stepped in" stories, since Florida. . . . Another kid brought a gun to school, but it didn't go further.
There have been three incidents here in Phoenix in recent days where boys were arrested for bringing guns to school. See here, here and here.
 
Posted by not entirely me (# 17637) on :
 
And Trump suggests the solution is to have more guns in schools for teachers to shoot the really naughty kids.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Not exactly, but I worry that could happen.

--Over-pressured teacher (health, divorce, finances, personal problems, buying their own supplies out of their own low salary, bringing breakfast for kids who don't get breakfast (yes, really)...);

mixed with

--out of control kid/class, day after day;

--too much noise;

--troublesome superiors and bureaucracy;

--traffic to/from school.


Mix all those together.

Add the moment when everything is .Just. .Too. .Much.

And the teacher can't walk away, or get any relief.

And add a loqe3e gun in teacher's pocket, purse, desk, backpack, supply closet.

Good chance someone will get hurt.


Teachers blow up and yell at students, abuse students, throw things in the classroom, throw kids up against walls and into lockers.

Most teachers probably don't do those things. But some do, and anyone can be overwhelmed.

And they're supposed to have concealed weapons?

Never mind kids getting their hands on the weapons--for fun, out of curiosity, as a prank, or worse.
[Help] [Projectile]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
No, you don't have to imagine that, because it's happening.

So, there haven't been 18 school shootings since Jan 1. In the Snopes article debunking the claim, there's a section on 'unintentional gunfire during school hours'

quote:
Unintentional gunfire during school hours: 3 (incidents resulting in injuries or deaths: 1)

10 January: Grayson College, Denison, Texas – A student fired a weapon belonging to an adviser, believing it wasn’t loaded. No injuries were reported.

1 February: Salvador B. Castro Middle School, Los Angeles – A semi-automatic handgun brought to school by a 12-year-old student accidentally went off. Four students were injured.

5 February: Harmony Learning Center, Maplewood, Minnesota – A third-grader pressed the trigger of a law enforcement officer’s handgun. The weapon went off but no one was injured.

 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
President Trump's latest contribution is a predictable follow up from the NRA view that "the answer to a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun".

Truth is, you can have the best security checks in the world, but no guarantees that teachers, or police officers, or security guards, will never lose it. People who have always behaved well can snap and behave badly.

The evidence from across the world is that the more guns there are in circulation, the greater the chance that they will be used malevolently. It's akin to exposure to viruses. The idea that you can rely on the inherent goodness of some people to foil the inherent badness of others doesn't stand up to detailed scrutiny.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No, you don't have to imagine that, because it's happening.

So, there haven't been 18 school shootings since Jan 1. In the Snopes article debunking the claim, there's a section on 'unintentional gunfire during school hours'

quote:
Unintentional gunfire during school hours: 3 (incidents resulting in injuries or deaths: 1)

10 January: Grayson College, Denison, Texas – A student fired a weapon belonging to an adviser, believing it wasn’t loaded. No injuries were reported.

1 February: Salvador B. Castro Middle School, Los Angeles – A semi-automatic handgun brought to school by a 12-year-old student accidentally went off. Four students were injured.

5 February: Harmony Learning Center, Maplewood, Minnesota – A third-grader pressed the trigger of a law enforcement officer’s handgun. The weapon went off but no one was injured.
It's another example of a common statistic, when guns are present there will always be a small rate of accidents. A rate of accidents that far exceeds the gains from the rare occasions when a "good guy with a gun" actually prevents a potential tragedy.

Even if you discount the increased rates of non-accidental incidents (suicides, people snapping when a gun is accessible) reducing the rate of accidents is more than reason enough to reduce the number of guns in schools rather than increase the number - and, for the rest of the nation too.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Who's taking on cults these days? I know there are some sane people in the NRA. But, overall, it acts like a cult.

Cults getting guns has always been a warning sign. Synanon, Elizabeth Clare Prophet's group, and I think Jonestown/People's Temple wound up with guns, too.

The NRA already has guns. And a lot more people than any of the named cults.

Paging all deprogrammers!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Not sure if this helps, but there is a parallel example in the UK associated with road traffic deaths.

In the 1960s, road traffic deaths per annum were around 6,000. Two pieces of legislation were introduced and both were opposed by some folks on grounds of infringement of freedoms.

The first was the breathalyser law, which enabled police to check on the sobriety of drivers and then carry out blood alcohol level tests. It introduced the idea of absolute offence for alcohol levels above the limit, or refusing to be tested.

The second was the compulsory wearing of seatbelts, again an absolute offence if you were caught.

Both pieces of legislation were backed by evidence that drunk driving was a major cause of road deaths and that seat belts reduced significantly the numbers of deaths when cars were in collisions.

Today, despite a massive increase in car ownership in the UK since the 1960's, road traffic deaths are less than a third of the 1960s levels.

The loss of personal freedoms caused by these legislative changes is almost universally recognised in the UK as a very small price to pay for the significant reduction in the death rate.

If you want to (and that is probably the key) you can apply similar conditional arguments to the rights claimed under the Second Amendment. The constitutional right to life and the constitutional right of liberty require a proper balance. The evidence is very strong that the death rate would come down if you apply some sensible oversight of the right to bear arms. Even if that implies some loss of present freedoms. The evidence is too strong to be ignored.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
you can apply similar conditional arguments to the rights claimed under the Second Amendment. The constitutional right to life and the constitutional right of liberty require a proper balance.
The balance being that the right to have a gun infringes the rights of others (and yourself) to life and liberty. To life because guns kill. To liberty because the fear of gun violence is trapping people in their homes or other places they feel safe. It seems a bizarre situation when some would appear to consider the right to carry a gun trumps the right to life and liberty.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
I suspect this is unnecessary here but on one of the right-wing-idiot threads I saw on FB, this does need spelling out.

There are lots of reasons why arming teachers is plain stupid but let's be clear on what we are talking about.

You'll hear terms like 'assault rifle' or 'semi-automatic' thrown around. On the aforementioned RWI-thread, one of the contributors was making lots of noise about it's not an assault rifle - that's a made up term by liberal idiots - you don't know what you're talking about... This is stupid semantics - I don't care what you call them, we are talking about firearms that fire multiple rounds without the user needing to reload and because the mechanics are sophisticated, they can fire multiple rounds in a second.

These are the kind of weapons that I don't believe belongs in the hands of civilians; they require significant training to be able to use safely (i.e. not hurting yourself or someone else accidentally) and to actually hit what you want to hit.

Now, this is a hypothetical I've been using a lot recently; in the UK and the US (and any most developed countries) we have a standing army trained to use such weapons. That makes sense. I think most of us can see why the infantry would use such a weapon in the context of war. Now picture the scene; Private Smith (fully trained and competent in the use of the M16 with its 30-round clip) decides that he wants to go hunting at the weekend and so goes and talks to his gunnery sergeant:
"Hey sarge, can I take my M16 home for the weekend?"
I suspect the NCO will not be very impressed but in the US he can just go down the road and buy one...

So what kind of weapons are teachers going to carry? Sidearms which are very difficult to shoot accurately - especially under stress? Some sort of semi-automatic that they need to keep in the classroom cupboard?

And moreover who's going to provide the vital training? In a system that is undoubted under-resourced as it is....

Teachers having guns simply means more people getting shot.

AFZ
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I'm guessing the NRA would do the training. AIUI they do have different kinds of training.

As to what guns teachers would have, I think I've been visualizing pistol-sized guns, not rifles nor machine guns. ISTM you can't really do concealed carry of a rifle. AIUI, concealed carry means you carry the gun on your person, or possibly in a purse, bag, etc.

Schools shouldn't have guns. But if they do, they should be kept in the office, with multiple locks. Of course, that would probably mean they couldn't be gotten quickly enough in an emergency.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Yep. Teachers having guns at school means more teachers dead.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
How many teachers are assaulted by pupils every year? Not thinking about the mass shootings. The risk of that would argue against teachers being armed in the classroom. The risk of being overpowered and the gun falling into the hands of angry pupils would be real.

So GK is right, the guns would have to be locked away securely. So if a mass shooting incident occurred, there would be an interval before teachers could get to the guns. How would that be better than a rapid police response?

Doesn't this whole idea fall apart purely on grounds of practicality?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I'm guessing the NRA would do the training. AIUI they do have different kinds of training.
How good is their training though? Good enough that someone could hit a moving target, at a distance, in the midst of a chaotic crowd of people running in different directions? Good enough to identify the bad guy from other students running around, to be able to differentiate between a long gun and an umbrella during a confusing and tense situation? Be able to identify the bad guy from other good guys on the scene who may also be armed (other teachers, plain clothes police who may be attending, a parent etc)? Be well enough trained in storage and handling that the gun will never be discharged accidentally, never be touched by a student or other untrained person?

IMO, training necessary to allow anyone to be armed such that they would be able to deal with the situation adequately (it's a situation that can never be handled well) and that the gun is kept safe enough that an accident will be much less likely than the incident they're seeking to prevent is significant. AIUI it's a level of training in excess of that provided to most police officers in the US (which means they also need better training).
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Even as Trump was explaining the plans to train and arm some teachers in the classroom, did it not occur to him how huge an admission of failure it was to have gotten that far?

Does he really want to live in a country where it's normal for children's education to be protected by armed teachers? Is that a forward step, in this issue?

What he seems to be saying is: now that it's part of our culture to see kids killed in the classroom, let's just suck it up, and shoot back.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
But does he do grown-up, joined-up, thinking?

IJ
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
...Doesn't this whole idea fall apart purely on grounds of practicality?
It's not about practicality. It's about enjoying the warm, fuzzy feeling of fantasising about being John Wayne defending the classroom from the bad guys.

If you mentally translate "2nd Amendment" to "masturbation", it all makes crazy sense.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I'm guessing the NRA would do the training. AIUI they do have different kinds of training.
I think it's adorably retro that you think the NRA is going to do the training, like they used to back in the days when they actually were a club for gun owners and hunters-- before Wayne LePierre figured out there's so much more money in being a lobbyist for gun manufacturers.

It's like expecting your physician to make house calls, or the milkman to deliver a dozen eggs
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It's not about practicality. It's about enjoying the warm, fuzzy feeling of fantasising about being John Wayne defending the classroom from the bad guys.
But, how many of those saying the solution is to give guns to teachers are going to be in that classroom to be John Wayne? They're not getting warm fuzzies about a fantasy where they're the hero, they're getting warm fuzzies about fantasies where someone else is the hero - and, where someone else has to deal with what happens when there's an accident with the gun, someone else has to live with harming someone else even in the defence of school kids and all the other burdens that having a gun (letting alone using it) brings. Piling burdens on the shoulders of others and not lifting a finger to help ease the load.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I give it six months before the first teacher has a Falling Down moment and opens fire on their class.

I mean, I don't want it to happen, but statistically, it's going to.

Then what do we do except arm the kids against the teachers?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I give it six months before the first teacher has a Falling Down moment and opens fire on their class.

I mean, I don't want it to happen, but statistically, it's going to.

Then what do we do except arm the kids against the teachers?
No, no. You have an assistant who aids the children in their work, aids in suppressive fire to any outside intruder and keeps the teacher in check.
If that system fails, then you arm the students.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The NRA firmly believes that 'good' people with guns can take out 'bad' people with guns. They watch a lot of movies.

There was an armed guard at Parkland high school. He was on the other side of the building (American high schools are huge, vast spaces with miles of corridors) and knew nothing until it was over. There were armed guards standing closely around President Reagan, the day he was shot. Did him no good at all.

If you, a good guy, were sitting in that school with your gun when an incident occurs, the chances are poor that you will take that killer out. The odds are much greater that the police will see you standing there with your pistol in your hand, and shoot you down. How do they know you are a 'good guy'? It's a crisis. Shoot first, ask later.

And this doesn't even take into consideration the issue of long-range shooting. Like Las Vegas. You and your gun, a lot of good it'll do you when the shooter is up on the 20th floor with a long gun.

This is from the POST: courts say the Second Amendment doesn't protect assault rifles. This will have to go up to the Supreme Court; I'm certain the NRA is fighting it.

From the Guardian, a roundup of quotations from yesterday's gun control meetings. I am so proud of these teens!

Wayne LaPierre, head of the NRA, accuses us all of hating individual freedoms. I'll believe him when he allows open carry at NRA events; at the moment guns are banned at their convention. Can't think why.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Piling burdens on the shoulders of others and not lifting a finger to help ease the load.
That sums it up very well.

[ 22. February 2018, 15:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Yes, ISTM that that's what most 'governments' do.

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Piling burdens on the shoulders of others and not lifting a finger to help ease the load.
That sums it up very well.
Not ours. Ours is busy dismantling regulations that protected the environment, clean drinking water. Regulations that helped prevent financial melt downs. Dismantling a safety net that insured access to health care. Yes, it's a great big beautiful world here in U.S. Now that the govt is off our backs and we've returned to the Wild Wild West and every man for himself (God help you if you're a woman or child)
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Supposing (and hoping), however, that a sensible administration takes over when t is finally consigned to the Outer Darkness he and his have created...

Will that administration be able to rebuild that which has been, and is being, torn down?

Or is it all too late for that?

[Ultra confused]

IJ
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
Hadn't appreciated that AR-15s are so lethal , and I'm sure not many of us this side of the pond are either.

It's really difficult to see how sales of such weapons to civilians can be justified - though I'm sure the NRA would have a damned good try!
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Reading that link made me feel quite sick.

How anyone can justify the free sale of such ghastly weapons to civilians is beyond me.

Perhaps the Dark Orange Lord should wear 'AR-15' on his cuffs, rather than '45'?

IJ
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
By and large, the sort of people who go into teaching are nice people who want to make kids lives better. There are probably some who are, to quote a description of my namesake, a dead shot with a cold nerve to kill as well but I'm guessing they are a minority. So the school administration bullies Mr or Mrs Smith into packing heat and then gives them a training course on how to use the weapon. Either they meet the low level of proficiency in firing a gun under non-life threatening conditions or they turn out to be a total klutz. So you have Mr or Mrs Smith, who is an excellent maths teacher, but can't hit a barn door at one hundred paces. Do you really sack them and replace them with someone with a shaky grasp of calculus but an pass in shooting stuff? If the latter you've given up on education. Now you could have a system where some teachers can handle guns and some can't, which, I think is what Trump has hinted at but what use is that. If someone turns up with an automatic weapon and starts emptying it into 4th grade maths, it won't be much use if the fucking Equaliser is teaching 3rd grade English in another building. Unless they've employed that guy who used to materialise in Doctor Who monthly in the early eighties, shoot the shit out of stuff, and teleport out again. I suspect, however, he's not sending his CV to School Principals at the moment. And knowing how to handle a gun in a crisis situation is not the same as being able to handle a gun on a range. I could learn to handle a gun on a range. I'm not sure how much use I'd be in a combat zone. There is a reason some things remain the province of experts.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
I can't imagine any teacher's union or other bargaining group that would allow its members to be required to carry guns.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I think today's statements are just diversionary tactics, by both the President and the NRA. They simply do not want to look at the lethal cost of the Second Amendment, as currently interpreted and policed.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I can't imagine any teacher's union or other bargaining group that would allow its members to be required to carry guns.
As was pointed out at work, it's also a system where the absolute best case outcome is where someone puts down someone they've been responsible for nurturing, etc... which:
a) is better than seeing others you care for being killed, but is still a pretty shit outcome.
b) must be bloody hard to do, which means you'd need good odds.
c) once you have got someone trained like that, do you really want them in charge of kids (as mentioned above)
d) probably polarises things from the nearly shooters (I don't know if a significant number get talked down, or stop once they've dealt with they grudge, I gather the statistics are nearly as well hidden as brexit reports)
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Charles Pierce, the H.R. Mencken of our time, gleefully reports on the FL students' town hall with Rubio and the NRA. This is a free click, and well worth gloating over.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Indeed it is.

[Overused]

These articulate, thoughtful kids - shaved heads, impolite questions, and all - must surely be an inspiration, and a sign of hope for the future.

Dark Orange Lord, your time, and that of your hideous minions, is limited.

IJ
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
"what would you do if your child lectured and ridiculed a U.S. Senator on national television?", if they behaved like those children I'd be leading the standing ovation.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Actually, I sincerely hope you'd be manning your cell phone and recording it. The kid will be needing that, to enclose with her application to Harvard or Yale.
A free click from GQ about why rudeness is sometimes essential.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
What's wrong with ridiculing senators? Who do they think they are, that they hold themselves above criticism? Fucking snowflakes.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
If the shoe fits, wear it.

The expression "contempt of Congress" always strikes me as ironic. If there's any institution that soundly and solidly deserves contempt, it's certainly Congress -- at least the Congress of fast-talking, back-slapping (and back-stabbing) hypocrites we seem to have sent to Washington. All too ready to lick the crotches of whatever lobby gives them the most money rather than do the will of the people who **are** the government of the country they were elected to represent.

So yeah, students, diss them with the diss they so rightly deserve. You have our support -- and our gratitude.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What's wrong with ridiculing senators? Who do they think they are, that they hold themselves above criticism? Fucking snowflakes.
They're already, cringingly, refusing to show up at town hall meetings. Defending their actions is too, too painful. There was a piece today on NPR about the FL students going from office to office at the state house in Tallahassee, seeing legislators. They hid, leaving staffers to fob the kids off.

And you remember the cabinet secretary who has been flying to events First Class -- his staffers sit in the back in coach. And why is that? He sat back with the poors once, and some prole told him he was destroying the environment. So delicate, so sensitive, was he (his skin so thin a kiss would mar it) that we have to now pay triple for him to fly with those of his own order. In first class people -understand-.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If you, a good guy, were sitting in that school with your gun when an incident occurs, the chances are poor that you will take that killer out. The odds are much greater that the police will see you standing there with your pistol in your hand, and shoot you down. How do they know you are a 'good guy'? It's a crisis. Shoot first, ask later.
After the Colorado movie theater shooting happened, locals there responded by buying guns. And I thought exactly what you wrote.

What are people going to do, shoot up the movie theater in the dark???
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
cliffdweller and Alan--

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I'm guessing the NRA would do the training. AIUI they do have different kinds of training.
I think it's adorably retro that you think the NRA is going to do the training, like they used to back in the days when they actually were a club for gun owners and hunters-- before Wayne LePierre figured out there's so much more money in being a lobbyist for gun manufacturers.

It's like expecting your physician to make house calls, or the milkman to deliver a dozen eggs
Oh, I didn't say that they *should* do the training, or that they'd do it well. And they do currently do various gun training courses.

I just think, given how enmeshed they are with the gov't, that either

a) The prez and/or Congress will call up the head NRA guy and say "Hey, Wayne, you're the only ones who can really do this, and we have a generous contract ready";

or

b) The head NRA guy will call up the prez and/or Congress and say "Hey, folks, we're the only ones who can really do this, and we have a reasonable contract ready".

The NRA gets some good PR for helping people and the gov't in a dangerous time, and gets to push the "guns aren't so bad" idea. The prez and Congress get more NRA money.

And the enmeshment continues.
[brick wall]

[ 22. February 2018, 21:56: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
They believe the scriptwriter is on their side. I hope it doesn't take some awful firefight with bodies everywhere to convince everybody different.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What's wrong with ridiculing senators? Who do they think they are, that they hold themselves above criticism? Fucking snowflakes.
They're already, cringingly, refusing to show up at town hall meetings. Defending their actions is too, too painful. There was a piece today on NPR about the FL students going from office to office at the state house in Tallahassee, seeing legislators. They hid, leaving staffers to fob the kids off.
Cowards.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The FL legislature refused to consider gun control but did pass a measure forcing all schools to display 'In God We Trust.' There is clearly some plot afoot, to destroy all the next generation's faith in a good God.
You remember how there was an armed officer on guard at that high school? He stayed outside. In a spirit of shutting the barn door after the horse is gone, the county sheriff has suspended him.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
I just ordered an AR upper build kit. It will arrive on my steps in 3 days. The serialized lower will be available to pick up from a nearby shop in a week. I also got 1000 rounds of NATO 5.56 for 280 bucks!! [Eek!]

My girls (9 and 14) are excited to help build a weapon they have both fired before, but never seen assembled. We'll take it on our annual camping trip in June and burn up those rounds at the Cedar Creek rifle range in the Sumter National Forest.

It will be great fun, and all for less than $1000!
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
That seems the best course of action.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That seems the best course of action.
Better odds of a stray dropping through what passes for your brain, fuck-stick.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
There’ve been a few wastes of carbon on SOF.
None moreso than you.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I don't know what an AR is. I assume it is an assault rifle designed to kill or incapacitate a large number of enemy soldiers quickly.

Certainly the best place to use your weapon is on a shooting range, and you are probably being sensible in teaching your daughters about guns. After all, if the US doesn't do something about restricting the availability of weapons designed for military uses, they will have to attend a weaponised High School sooner or later. Although, thinking about that, if your kids think they know how to handle a weapon, they might try to rush a shooter and catch a bullet in the crossfire between the shooter and their teacher. Perhaps its better if you focus on teaching them to hide in unusual places.

Hang on, in Australia most teachers are socialists or liberals from an American perspective. Is that the case in America? Is the NRA proposing to arm and train THE LEFT????
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There’ve been a few wastes of carbon on SOF.
None moreso than you.
That is truly painful, coming from a stammering half-wit of your stature.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
What could possibly go wrong with a trained instructor teaching a nine-year-old to shoot an assault weapon?
[Mad]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
This is interesting. Suggests the American should repeal their 2nd Amendment. "Why not just ban gun and when people are upset about it, just send them thoughts and prayers? If ‘thoughts and prayers’ are good enough for people who’ve lost their families, then it’s good enough for people who’ve lost their guns".

Gundamentalist is a useful word.

[ 23. February 2018, 01:12: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
From the POST: the politicians won't change. So we have to vote them out. "They need to fear you and me more than they fear the National Rifle Association," Eugene Robinson says. I think we can do that.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
What could possibly go wrong with a trained instructor teaching a nine-year-old to shoot an assault weapon?
[Mad]
Yeah, my brain immediately went there as well.

I've been trying to think if there is anything that makes me more angry than all the morons in the US who get their understanding of how gunfights work from Hollywood movies, where the bad guys are poor shots and never kill the significant characters.

Nope. I honestly can't think of anything that enrages me more. Not because it's the absolute worst thing in the world, but because it is so obviously preventable if they spent 5 fucking seconds looking at the rest of the developed world.

[ 23. February 2018, 01:45: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
AR15s are rarely involved in single homicide by gun incidents, but they have been used in several mass shootings. The argument for banning them or restricting their ownership is based on the disproportionate numbers of deaths and life changing injuries caused by their use in mass attacks. They are truly lethal weapons, capable of causing horrific injuries - as TonyK's link illustrates vividly.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
My brother, a retired schoolteacher, e-mailed me some very insightful comments. I quote:

quote:
Regarding T's moronic suggestion that we arm the teachers: Why don't any of the reporters say, "Would anyone even dream of suggesting, 'Hey, we don't need the Secret Service anymore; just give guns to Trump and Melania and Baron and let them protect themselves!' or 'We don't even need police; just give guns to all the citizens and let the good guys with guns police all the bad guys in their town!'"

And by the way, the teacher would have a "pistol" while the bad guy has an automatic weapon, so the teachers will get blown away. And God help the teacher who decides he needs to shoot a kid, but a jury says he over-reacted, so the teacher gets thrown in prison.

But it shouldn't surprise us that T's solution to preventing school shootings is to bring "more" guns into schools, because this is the same guy who thinks that the best way to improve sex "in" his marriage is to have sex with porn stars "outside" his marriage.

 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I just ordered an AR upper build kit. It will arrive on my steps in 3 days. The serialized lower will be available to pick up from a nearby shop in a week. I also got 1000 rounds of NATO 5.56 for 280 bucks!! [Eek!]

My girls (9 and 14) are excited to help build a weapon they have both fired before, but never seen assembled. We'll take it on our annual camping trip in June and burn up those rounds at the Cedar Creek rifle range in the Sumter National Forest.

It will be great fun, and all for less than $1000!
One of the best arguments for the existence of God is that He apparently keeps alive people who are otherwise too stupid to live.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There’ve been a few wastes of carbon on SOF.
None moreso than you.
That is truly painful, coming from a stammering half-wit of your stature.
Better a minor word usage error than the cognitive errors you so readily display.
I though about composing a more clever reply, but you are not worth it and likely wouldn't understand it.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I just ordered an AR upper build kit. It will arrive on my steps in 3 days. The serialized lower will be available to pick up from a nearby shop in a week. I also got 1000 rounds of NATO 5.56 for 280 bucks!! [Eek!]

My girls (9 and 14) are excited to help build a weapon they have both fired before, but never seen assembled. We'll take it on our annual camping trip in June and burn up those rounds at the Cedar Creek rifle range in the Sumter National Forest.

It will be great fun, and all for less than $1000!
One of the best arguments for the existence of God is that He apparently keeps alive people who are otherwise too stupid to live.
Say what you'd like about him, his infinite wisdom is well established on these boards.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I just ordered an AR upper build kit. It will arrive on my steps in 3 days. The serialized lower will be available to pick up from a nearby shop in a week. I also got 1000 rounds of NATO 5.56 for 280 bucks!! [Eek!]

My girls (9 and 14) are excited to help build a weapon they have both fired before, but never seen assembled. We'll take it on our annual camping trip in June and burn up those rounds at the Cedar Creek rifle range in the Sumter National Forest.

It will be great fun, and all for less than $1000!
One of the best arguments for the existence of God is that He apparently keeps alive people who are otherwise too stupid to live.
Say what you'd like about him, his infinite wisdom is well established on these boards.
As is His great mercy.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
[qb] I just ordered an AR upper build kit. It will arrive on my steps in 3 days. The serialized lower will be available to pick up from a nearby shop in a week. I also got 1000 rounds of NATO 5.56 for 280 bucks!! [Eek!]

My girls (9 and 14) are excited to help build a weapon they have both fired before, but never seen assembled. We'll take it on our annual camping trip in June and burn up those rounds at the Cedar Creek rifle range in the Sumter National Forest.

It will be great fun, and all for less than $1000!
One of the best arguments for the existence of God is that He apparently keeps alive people who are otherwise too stupid to live.
Say what you'd like about him, his infinite wisdom is well established on these boards.
As is His great mercy.
To that I can offer my only sincere Amen in years. Thank you.


[Votive]

[ 23. February 2018, 02:46: Message edited by: romanlion ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
...you do realise I'm calling you a blithering idiot, yes?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...you do realise I'm calling you a blithering idiot, yes?
Really?! Oh shit, well gimme a minute...

Check back shortly!
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I was just thinking about this on the dunny, and I reckon Romanlion is hard core trolling.

He mentions his aaaaaarrrrrr, presumably some kind of loathsome thing to have in civilian hands. He mentions his young children around guns, and shooting this (again, I'm guessing) heavy and difficult thing for children to use. He mentions a stack of ammo (again, a guess). I think his scenario is designed to elicit angry responses from sensible people with everyday attitudes to weapons of mass killing potential.

I'm calling Romanlion a bullshit artist. I call on Romanlion to produce photographic evidence of him assembling his aaaaarrrrr with his daughters in his loungeroom. I want to see Romanlion in a MAGA hat with a post-it note attached with the words on it "I heart simontoad". Only then, will I desist from calling him a dangerous lunatic.

If, Romanlion, you told me what you wrote in your post face-to-face I would literally back away slowly. If you were in Australia, I would also think about making a call to the anti-terrorism hotline.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I just ordered a [monkey killer] build kit.
[slow clap]
Oh, I didn't realize that horrific trolling was part of the Winter Olympics. Are you trolling direct from PyeongChang?

Good mount, right off the bat, with energetic chain yanking. Things fell apart with the addition of anecdotal proof that you've ever had sex. I give it a 4/10, mostly suffering from deductions due to blaring obviousness and continued failure to use reason. Still, it has to be said that it was an effective troll, sinking the barb directly into people's fundamental humanity.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I'd definitely make a call to Child Protection. No question.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I just ordered a [monkey killer] build kit.
[slow clap]
Oh, I didn't realize that horrific trolling was part of the Winter Olympics. Are you trolling direct from PyeongChang?

Good mount, right off the bat, with energetic chain yanking. Things fell apart with the addition of anecdotal proof that you've ever had sex. I give it a 4/10, mostly suffering from deductions due to blaring obviousness and continued failure to use reason. Still, it has to be said that it was an effective troll, sinking the barb directly into people's fundamental humanity.
Is that your way of saying that I fit right in with the Americans?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I'd thought of asking romanlion whether he was for real about the gun, or just yanking our chains. I decided I wasn't sure I wanted to know.
[Paranoid]

And if it was a "joke", do we have to go back and reinterpret *all* of his posts?

{We need a smiley for running away and hiding, preferably in a comfy, well-stocked place with lights, books, blankets, and pillows.}
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Get a room, FFS.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Is that your way of saying that I fit right in with the Americans?
Look, I already gave my scoring. There's no bonus points for extra trolling. Lucky for you, because that was weak.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Things fell apart with the addition of anecdotal proof that you've ever had sex.
[Killing me]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Is that your way of saying that I fit right in with the Americans?
Look, I already gave my scoring. There's no bonus points for extra trolling. Lucky for you, because that was weak.
Sorry about that. I just appreciate the non-US citizen perspective on these matters so much, I didn't mean to offend...
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
DNFTT
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
DNFTT
Rodents gotta EAT around here!!
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Is that your way of saying that I fit right in with the Americans?
Look, I already gave my scoring. There's no bonus points for extra trolling. Lucky for you, because that was weak.
Sorry about that. I just appreciate the non-US citizen perspective on these matters so much, I didn't mean to offend...
Mate, I have tried on numerous occasions to draw out from you your reasoning on various positions on US politics. On each occasion you have either ignored me, rebuffed me or just jerked me around.

This non-US citizen is deeply committed to at least one version of the American Dream, embodied by the 'light on the hill'. I might interpret that dream as belonging to a broader people than US citizens, but it is still an American dream, just as much as it is also an Australian one.

This non-US citizen was bought up knowing what the USA did for Australia, and its cost. Blood means something to this non-US citizen.

I recognise that a large number of Americans support something like the NRA version of Conservatism and I want to try and understand why somebody would think that way. On the ship, you seem to be the way in, but every fucking time you block me.

My feeling has always been that the NRA version of conservatism in its current manifestation is illogical and emotive. Its about heritage and tradition, rather than thinking about sensible policy. It wasn't always like that. I might be wrong, but I don't think many Americans cared all that much about their right to own an assault weapon in the 1980's. People wanted to have a pistol somewhere I think, or wanted a gun to hunt with, but not an assault rifle.

My opinion on this remains provisional. I remain willing to discover a perspective that makes it all make sense. I think there is a big barrier to my finding such an argument, constructed of the bodies of Americans who have died by the gun in the last year or so. But the point is that I don't ask you for your position so I can call you a monster, but so I can understand why you are not one.

Please, all bets are off.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And if it was a "joke", do we have to go back and reinterpret *all* of his posts?
I think we need to conclude that he campaigned for Mrs Clinton, even keeping a nostalgic "Clinton" board displayed in his yard.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Back to guns.

I reckon trump will arm teachers - those willing to be armed and trained.

Further tragedy will ensue. It could be anything - child takes teacher’s gun and shoots. Shooter goes for teachers first etc etc. What it can’t do is make school safer or free from these terrible events.

What then?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Simontoad - I think it's about the myth of redemptive violence. It permeates some aspects of American culture.

Think of the films where a "good" guy with a gun sets the world to rights. By killing the "bad" guys. A country so full of evangelicals, supposedly committed to a gospel of grace, forgiveness and reconciliation, but apparently in love with the concepts of payback, retaliation and revenge.

This is the heart of the NRA and Trump's problem, as far as I see it. They cannot conceive of people not going into schools with semi-automatic weapons in the first place, even though in the rest of the developed world that is exactly what doesn't happen. They can only conceive of what to do if it does. At best they can only conceive of deterrence through fear, rather than the opportunity simply not arising in the first place.

The combination of "hey, the solution is for me to be able to kill you" and easy availability of firearms appears to be the toxic mix.

I've said this before, and it still seems to ring true - to the NRA mindset, the focus is on how much safer they feel with a gun. For the rest of us, and almost universally outside of the US, we focus on how much safer we feel knowing that the people around us almost certainly don't have one.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Karl, thanks. I reckon you're probably right. My impression, pretty strongly, is that this myth has been around since at least the Ancient Greeks, and it didn't have such a damaging influence in America until recently, other than in the conflict between black and white. Maybe that's it. Maybe the strategies and morality applied to keeping the Blacks away from power are now being applied to broader social battles?

But the point is that I want to hear how someone who holds these views justifies them. As I have written before in a previous attempt to get Romanlion to open up, I know conservative Americans personally. But they are in their eighties, and I love them and I don't want to drive a wedge between us.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I watched Anderson Cooper 360 last night and two things emerged from the discussions which really struck me.

1. One of those involved in the discussions was a teacher from Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school who was at the shcool during the mass shooting. She declared herself to be a Trump supporter and strong believer in 2nd Amendment freedoms. When asked what she thought of the proposal to arm (and train) gun-competent teachers, she observed that the experience had changed her mind. Before the event, she would have thought it was a good idea. But the experience had taught her how chaotic these situations were, how difficult it was to think straight, never mind shoot straight. She was also strongly against teachers carrying guns in the classroom, or even having them locked away in the classroom for rapid access. She thought the risks of pupils getting hold of those guns were too great to be born. She also talked about the emotional volatility of the pupils she taught, and the dangers of them getting hold of these extra guns.

The we hear that the armed school resource officer (in the post since 2009), faced with the impact of the event and hearing the semi-automatic rifle fire, hid behind a pillar outside the school while the shooting went on within the school. I guess a sense of self-preservation took over, got in the way of him doing what he was there to do. Easy to call him a coward, if you haven't experienced the chaos and the fear yourself.

The notion of arming teachers would seem, at best to be problematic.

The second thing was that in a later discussion, there was one panelist (a US citizen) who argued that the US should indeed learn and reflect on the responses of the UK and Australian governments to the mass school shootings experienced there, and the absence of any repetition. She drew parallels with controls over car drivers to reduce road deaths. She argued that more radical gun control steps should at least be discussed. She was isolated amongst the five panelists (3 Democrats, 2 Republicans). The other four did not even discuss her observations, I suppose because in the USA context they were seen as politically unrealistic. I really didn't know what to make of that. As orfeo has observed here

quote:
I've been trying to think if there is anything that makes me more angry than all the morons in the US who get their understanding of how gunfights work from Hollywood movies, where the bad guys are poor shots and never kill the significant characters.

Nope. I honestly can't think of anything that enrages me more. Not because it's the absolute worst thing in the world, but because it is so obviously preventable if they spent 5 fucking seconds looking at the rest of the developed world.
What is wrong with discussing the responses elsewhere in the world? Thinking the unthinkable?

[ 23. February 2018, 09:25: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That seems the best course of action.
Better odds of a stray dropping through what passes for your brain, fuck-stick.
Actually, no. I don't live around guns, don't own a gun, my neighbourhood is pretty much unarmed and even the police aren't routinely carrying.

Your magical thinking that I'm going to get hit by an entirely non-existent bullet is at a greater odds than you or your children when they're around actual bullets is really very special.

[ 23. February 2018, 09:41: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist in Purgatory:
According to a report in the London Times, Wayne LaPierre has said that the right to bear arms has been 'granted by God to all Americans as our birthright'. Can any Shipmate explain to me how he arrives at that conclusion? How was it granted by God? and why to Americans?
Copied over from a closed thread in Purgatory. Feel free to be as serious or as rude as you like!
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
He's going to be shocked - Shocked! I tell you - when he finds out the meaning of the word 'amendment'.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
My answer. He's just wrong. Amendment 1 to the Constitution says this.

quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Constitution deliberately stands outside organised religious belief. So any claim that the right to bear arms (Amendment 2) is God-given would seem to fly in the face of Amendment 1.

The Consitution is man-made, and as far as I am aware makes no claim to be God-given.

[ 23. February 2018, 11:10: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
The we hear that the armed school resource officer (in the post since 2009), faced with the impact of the event and hearing the semi-automatic rifle fire, hid behind a pillar outside the school while the shooting went on within the school. I guess a sense of self-preservation took over, got in the way of him doing what he was there to do. Easy to call him a coward, if you haven't experienced the chaos and the fear yourself.
It takes a great deal of both courage to put yourself in a situation where you might get hurt. I once helped prevent a mugging on the London Underground by standing next to the potential muggee and his girlfriend, thus giving, I hoped, the impression that in a rumble he would have to take on three of us rather than two. During the incident I was completely terrified. The sort of people who would run towards the sound of an automatic rifle are incredibly brave, almost certainly trained to deal with the situation or denser than the core of a white dwarf. Sticking some poor bloke with a gun on site and hoping he turns out to be Colonel 'H' Jones when the balloon goes up is a tad optimistic. There's a reason that the army doesn't just give new recruits a gun and say, "the enemy are over there somewhere, off you trot".
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist in Purgatory:
According to a report in the London Times, Wayne LaPierre has said that the right to bear arms has been 'granted by God to all Americans as our birthright'. Can any Shipmate explain to me how he arrives at that conclusion? How was it granted by God? and why to Americans?
Copied over from a closed thread in Purgatory. Feel free to be as serious or as rude as you like!
This is what the philosopher Richard Rorty described as "God as a conversation stopper". It isn't a serious theological position. It's a desperate attempt to shut down debate.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My answer. He's just wrong. Amendment 1 to the Constitution says this.

quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Constitution deliberately stands outside organised religious belief. So any claim that the right to bear arms (Amendment 2) is God-given would seem to fly in the face of Amendment 1.

The Consitution is man-made, and as far as I am aware makes no claim to be God-given.
If I can be very boring I think it is fair to mention that "God" and "Organised religion" are very different things. Some Organised religion has a weird idea of God (even Organised Christian religion) while God wouldn't recognise many aspects of Himself in some Organised religions despite thorough, close and minute examination.

That said, I'm sure he has a view of Wayne LaPierre and I'm confident that He will ask Wayne what the heck he was on about. However God can put that.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
The we hear that the armed school resource officer (in the post since 2009), faced with the impact of the event and hearing the semi-automatic rifle fire, hid behind a pillar outside the school while the shooting went on within the school. I guess a sense of self-preservation took over, got in the way of him doing what he was there to do. Easy to call him a coward, if you haven't experienced the chaos and the fear yourself.
It takes a great deal of both courage to put yourself in a situation where you might get hurt. I once helped prevent a mugging on the London Underground by standing next to the potential muggee and his girlfriend, thus giving, I hoped, the impression that in a rumble he would have to take on three of us rather than two. During the incident I was completely terrified. The sort of people who would run towards the sound of an automatic rifle are incredibly brave, almost certainly trained to deal with the situation or denser than the core of a white dwarf. Sticking some poor bloke with a gun on site and hoping he turns out to be Colonel 'H' Jones when the balloon goes up is a tad optimistic. There's a reason that the army doesn't just give new recruits a gun and say, "the enemy are over there somewhere, off you trot".
That's very impressive Callan. I've never been in that type of situation. I don't know how I would react. Please God I am not tested.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Fair point, Sioni. But I think it is a decent inference; it would seem odd for the writers of the Constitution and Amendments 1 and 2 to claim that the writings were in any way specially divinely inspired.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
At the time the wealthy men wrote the American constitution they were pretty much all slave owners weren't they?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
At the time the wealthy men wrote the American constitution they were pretty much all slave owners weren't they?
Yup, another God-given right.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist in Purgatory:
According to a report in the London Times, Wayne LaPierre has said that the right to bear arms has been 'granted by God to all Americans as our birthright'. Can any Shipmate explain to me how he arrives at that conclusion? How was it granted by God? and why to Americans?
Copied over from a closed thread in Purgatory. Feel free to be as serious or as rude as you like!
It seems a pity we can only discuss this subject in Hell where we are allowed to rant, curse and insult each other more or less as much as we like. In part I can answer Eirenist's question.

1. Neither the right to bear arms nor the US Constitution, nor anybody else's for that matter, has been granted by God.

2. If either of them are anyone's birthright, it is so from some other human source.

3. 'America', whether as a continent or as a state, is no more (or less) special to God than anyone or anywhere else.

4. 1-3 strike me as theologically so fundamentally obvious that I can't explain to anyone how he can reach his conclusion without error, delusion or both.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've said this before, and it still seems to ring true - to the NRA mindset, the focus is on how much safer they feel with a gun. For the rest of us, and almost universally outside of the US, we focus on how much safer we feel knowing that the people around us almost certainly don't have one.
And it is still worth a [Overused]

The victims of hungerford and Dublane did not lose their lives in vain because it meant something was done to reduce the risk of it happening over and over again.
Guns are culturally addictive, (not just to owners), and the States are completely hooked. Until the Country as a whole says 'My name is Uncle Sam, I have a problem', nothing will change.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
The we hear that the armed school resource officer (in the post since 2009), faced with the impact of the event and hearing the semi-automatic rifle fire, hid behind a pillar outside the school while the shooting went on within the school. I guess a sense of self-preservation took over, got in the way of him doing what he was there to do. Easy to call him a coward, if you haven't experienced the chaos and the fear yourself.
It takes a great deal of both courage to put yourself in a situation where you might get hurt. I once helped prevent a mugging on the London Underground by standing next to the potential muggee and his girlfriend, thus giving, I hoped, the impression that in a rumble he would have to take on three of us rather than two. During the incident I was completely terrified. The sort of people who would run towards the sound of an automatic rifle are incredibly brave, almost certainly trained to deal with the situation or denser than the core of a white dwarf. Sticking some poor bloke with a gun on site and hoping he turns out to be Colonel 'H' Jones when the balloon goes up is a tad optimistic. There's a reason that the army doesn't just give new recruits a gun and say, "the enemy are over there somewhere, off you trot".
Though the reports I read said the officer in question was a 30+ year veteran in the police. Which, of course, doesn't mean this wasn't the first time he'd been confronted by someone with a gun (it's quite possible he'd never been put in that position before). Possibly rather than a posting for a raw recruit the position of officer guarding a school is seen as one of those soft options given to someone approaching retirement and no longer quite up to the rigours of pounding the beat and chasing down petty crooks, an alternative to the proverbial desk job.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I just ordered a [monkey killer] build kit.
[slow clap]
Oh, I didn't realize that horrific trolling was part of the Winter Olympics. Are you trolling direct from PyeongChang?

Good mount, right off the bat, with energetic chain yanking. Things fell apart with the addition of anecdotal proof that you've ever had sex. I give it a 4/10, mostly suffering from deductions due to blaring obviousness and continued failure to use reason. Still, it has to be said that it was an effective troll, sinking the barb directly into people's fundamental humanity.
[Overused]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'm calling Romanlion a bullshit artist. I call on Romanlion to produce photographic evidence of him assembling his aaaaarrrrr with his daughters in his loungeroom. I want to see Romanlion in a MAGA hat with a post-it note attached with the words on it "I heart simontoad". Only then, will I desist from calling him a dangerous lunatic.
Hostly furry hat on

I missed this earlier in the rush. Perhaps my eyes were still bleeding from romanlion's 'post'.

I appreciate that he's an utter dickwad and lower than a bilge rat, but even a total cockwomble like him is afforded the protection of anonymity (and dear Lord, doesn't he need it?) and there should be no attempts to tease out his RL persona (I'm guessing living out of a basement in Omsk), no matter how gratifyingly disappointing the reality might be.

So let's not do that. We have standards, despite the provocation.

DT
HH

Hostly furry hat off
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though the reports I read said the officer in question was a 30+ year veteran in the police. Which, of course, doesn't mean this wasn't the first time he'd been confronted by someone with a gun (it's quite possible he'd never been put in that position before). Possibly rather than a posting for a raw recruit the position of officer guarding a school is seen as one of those soft options given to someone approaching retirement and no longer quite up to the rigours of pounding the beat and chasing down petty crooks, an alternative to the proverbial desk job.
Someone elsewhere has made the entirely cogent point that police officers have been routinely assigned to schools since Colombine, and in that time have prevented precisely zero school shootings, but have managed to arrest many students, often black students, for minor infractions of the law.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The NYPD stat for hitting the target in a gun fight is 18%. These are trained police officers in the biggest city in the US. It is difficult to believe that a teacher could better those odds in her classroom.

As to guns being a God-given right, remember that Wayne LaPierre has no theology degree and is in fact a minion of Moloch. Child sacrifice is OK with him. It would be useless to point out to him that, if you're going to go that route, I could claim that my God has called upon me to smite the heathen and to gut LaPierre with a kitchen knife would be a holy and appropriate offering upon His altar. You can find a religion to let you do anything. His religion is guns.

[ 23. February 2018, 13:34: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Two people died in the Lindt Cafe siege. One was executed for pissing the gunman off, and the other caught a stray bullet when the rozzers rushed the place in response to the gunshot. Three other hostages and a police officer were also injured by police bullets.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
As to guns being a God-given right, remember that Wayne LaPierre has no theology degree and is in fact a minion of Moloch.
It's obvious that owning and using guns is a god-given right. In fact a demand of god. It's just the god in question is Moloch. Not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God and Father of Christ Jesus.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Alan Cresswell

I think a 30 year veteran might be quite well aware that going up a gunman firing a semi automatic rifle with a standard issue police sidearm was hardly an equal contest.

He would probably have guessed AR15. I think that might have given anyone pause for thought.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think a 30 year veteran might be quite well aware that going up a gunman firing a semi automatic rifle with a standard issue police sidearm was hardly an equal contest.

He would probably have guessed AR15. I think that might have given anyone pause for thought.
So, someone with the experience necessary to confront someone armed with an AR15 or similar knows that the only chance of doing so with any degree of success is to wait for tactical backup. Someone without that experience might rush in and would do no good (quite probably be one of the casualties while the gun man gets on with his murderous rampage).
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
That's my thinking. There is probably an argument for excluding AR15s from Second Amendment protection, allowing a period for their surrender, then outlawing their possession. That wouldn't reduce the overall homicide by gun rate by all that much, but would reduce significantly the risks of school mass shootings.

That's a partial Aussie-type solution, so it probably will go in the thinking the unthinkable pile.

The alternative, of arming these resource officers (or even teachers) with equivalent lethal weapons, sounds terribly dangerous.

[ 23. February 2018, 14:22: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Alan Cresswell

I think a 30 year veteran might be quite well aware that going up a gunman firing a semi automatic rifle with a standard issue police sidearm was hardly an equal contest.

He would probably have guessed AR15. I think that might have given anyone pause for thought.
It rather messes up the NRA claim though that 'the right way to deal with a bad man with a gun is to have a good man with a gun there too'.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Alan Cresswell

I think a 30 year veteran might be quite well aware that going up a gunman firing a semi automatic rifle with a standard issue police sidearm was hardly an equal contest.

He would probably have guessed AR15. I think that might have given anyone pause for thought.
It rather messes up the NRA claim though that 'the right way to deal with a bad man with a gun is to have a good man with a gun there too'.
It messes up the claim. But, probably only because this individual cop is within the 99+% of the population who are just normal. Not one of the very few "bad guys", and not one of the heroic "good guys", just a normal guy with normal concerns and behaving in a normal way when faced with a situation like that.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
If possession of certain classes of firearm were to be resticted or even prohibited, and the owners refused to give them up, what would happen then? Just asking.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
The we hear that the armed school resource officer (in the post since 2009), faced with the impact of the event and hearing the semi-automatic rifle fire, hid behind a pillar outside the school while the shooting went on within the school. I guess a sense of self-preservation took over, got in the way of him doing what he was there to do. Easy to call him a coward, if you haven't experienced the chaos and the fear yourself.
It takes a great deal of both courage to put yourself in a situation where you might get hurt. I once helped prevent a mugging on the London Underground by standing next to the potential muggee and his girlfriend, thus giving, I hoped, the impression that in a rumble he would have to take on three of us rather than two. During the incident I was completely terrified. The sort of people who would run towards the sound of an automatic rifle are incredibly brave, almost certainly trained to deal with the situation or denser than the core of a white dwarf. Sticking some poor bloke with a gun on site and hoping he turns out to be Colonel 'H' Jones when the balloon goes up is a tad optimistic. There's a reason that the army doesn't just give new recruits a gun and say, "the enemy are over there somewhere, off you trot".
Though the reports I read said the officer in question was a 30+ year veteran in the police. Which, of course, doesn't mean this wasn't the first time he'd been confronted by someone with a gun (it's quite possible he'd never been put in that position before). Possibly rather than a posting for a raw recruit the position of officer guarding a school is seen as one of those soft options given to someone approaching retirement and no longer quite up to the rigours of pounding the beat and chasing down petty crooks, an alternative to the proverbial desk job.
I think the problem with school shootings is that they are comparatively rare and, therefore, the man on site is going to be unprepared. When I had dealings with armed policemen, once upon a time, they were hand picked and highly trained. They knew that if they got a phone call from my colleagues they would be required to subdue and help arrest potentially armed and vicious criminals. They were prepared and ready, and very good at their jobs. On the other hand, the job of guarding a school is, in most cases, a sinecure. You do your years of hard graft and then you spend your declining years pottering round the school, making people feel safe, in the case of our guy. I don't know how the system works across the board, but I'm guessing if your the sort of person who can make a success of a career in the Marines, Delta Force or a tactical armed unit in the police you don't take a job guarding a school. So when it does all kick off you aren't going to have someone who is prepared and ready for combat. That's the case if you're an middle aged cop or someone younger who applied for the job because you wanted to carry a gun and the army wouldn't have you. So, suddenly, there is a young fit man spraying bullets across the place and all around the screams of those that perish. Now, in a movie, suddenly, the guy would step up to the plate and bring down the baddie with a well aimed shot, followed by a pithy one liner. In real life you have someone who has been hired to deal with an eventuality that he is totally unprepared for. Best case scenario, our guy steps up to the plate and gets a chest full of bullets. Worst case, he manages to fire his weapon and adds to the student casualties. Frankly, cowering behind a pillar is the responsible option in those circumstances.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
If possession of certain classes of firearm were to be resticted or even prohibited, and the owners refused to give them up, what would happen then? Just asking.
Police and legislators then have a range of options, including fines, invalidating insurance policies for dwellings where the weapons are kept, using the presence of weapons as an aggravating factor for charges and sentences, linking refusals to drivers' permit validity, etc, etc, as well as the generally unwise approach of turning up to confiscate them.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I don't think the sort of process that happened in Australia, where there was an amnesty and buy back followed by enforcement of bans, would work in the US. That Oregon siege a couple of years ago shows the extent to which some people are prepared to defy not only the law, but law enforcement.

I also don't know the process whereby a national gun related scheme can be agreed upon and/or imposed upon the 50 states. It has to be a national thing to work, of course. Look at Mexico. They have gun laws I think, but its no good because of the free-for-all to the north.

It has to be a gradual thing. Better licensing systems, more restrictions on where and how certain guns can be purchased or traded, more restictions on where certain guns can be carried and/or used would be a stage 1 thing, just off the top.

The language and siege mentality of senior NRA figures is of course a huge obstacle to any orderly imposition of gun controls.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I think Americans would be more amenable to the car model. Specifically, insurance. You want a car? You get insurance that covers not only theft but accident, by or to your vehicle.
You want a gun? The insurance you will be obliged to purchase covers not only the loss to you if it is stolen, but your liability when you accidentally shoot the mailman or your own foot. The (considerable) medical bills are then covered and do not fall upon the public when you cannot pay them. Your premiums go down if you store it in a locked place, get training, renew licensing, etc., just like they do with cars.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
On the other hand, the job of guarding a school is, in most cases, a sinecure. You do your years of hard graft and then you spend your declining years pottering round the school, making people feel safe, in the case of our guy.
Bear in mind that the (certainly in England and Wales) job of courtroom security, that used to be handled by Officers of the Court and the Prison Service, are now handled by Serco and G4S.

I've heard too many stories where the defendant/prisoner kicks off, the guards' first instinct is to move away from the person they're there to control, and it's the defence solicitor/court usher who are the ones who bring them to the ground. In one notable incident, a magistrate vaulted the bench and tackled the miscreant.

It's not that the ones in the uniforms are poorly paid (they often are): it's the public service ethos that's the problem. Some poorly trained, badly paid, out-sourced worker isn't going to put their life on the line, or suffer employment-ending injuries, if they know they're not valued or protected during the rest of their working hours.
 
Posted by Mad Cat (# 9104) on :
 
I grew up down the road from Dumblane, and I teach in a secondary school. The idea of 'hardening' schools is abhorrent. Abhorrent. When did an arms race ever end well?

The gun lobby claims their amendment, which they value more than the safety of children. Of course, behind their amendment is the money. They value the money more than the safety of children.

It's my firm belief that they will answer to their Maker, and they should FEAR.

A wise child once told me that God doesn't send anyone to hell: we choose to go there ourselves. What will they choose?
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
... There is probably an argument for excluding AR15s from Second Amendment protection, allowing a period for their surrender...
Confiscated Guns Must Be Sold, Not Destroyed, Rules Arizona Supreme Court
quote:
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled the city of Tucson can no longer destroy firearms that have been confiscated by police or turned in by citizens... In 2013, state lawmakers spelled out that if police seize or acquire guns, they must sell them to licensed firearms dealers.
You can't make this stuff up.
[Help]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Presumably this is to ensure that the firearms concerned get sold all nice and legally to the 'good guys', rather than find their way illegally to the 'bad guys'?

Yes?

IJ
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled the city of Tucson can no longer destroy firearms that have been confiscated by police or turned in by citizens... In 2013, state lawmakers spelled out that if police seize or acquire guns, they must sell them to licensed firearms dealers.
One wonders what clause in the Arizona state constitution could possibly be violated by destroying firearms. Unless, heaven forfend, they were overstepping their bounds.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I presume the logic is that seized goods should be sold where possible, the monies raised supporting law enforcement and saving tax payers some cash. Presumably if those goods can't be legally sold (eg drugs) they're destroyed. But, if guns can legally be sold then the courts have ruled that they should be, treating them the same as auctioning off a drug runners collection of fast cars.

If those guns are seized because the law has changed so that they can no longer be owned then there's no option, no gun store that can legally sell them, so they're destroyed.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, probably only because this individual cop is within the 99+% of the population who are just normal. Not one of the very few "bad guys", and not one of the heroic "good guys", just a normal guy with normal concerns and behaving in a normal way when faced with a situation like that.
A possibility which seems beyond President Trump.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The NYPD stat for hitting the target in a gun fight is 18%. These are trained police officers in the biggest city in the US. It is difficult to believe that a teacher could better those odds in her classroom.

As to guns being a God-given right, remember that Wayne LaPierre has no theology degree and is in fact a minion of Moloch. Child sacrifice is OK with him. It would be useless to point out to him that, if you're going to go that route, I could claim that my God has called upon me to smite the heathen and to gut LaPierre with a kitchen knife would be a holy and appropriate offering upon His altar. You can find a religion to let you do anything. His religion is guns.
Sadly, yes. Yes.
[Overused] [Votive]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, probably only because this individual cop is within the 99+% of the population who are just normal. Not one of the very few "bad guys", and not one of the heroic "good guys", just a normal guy with normal concerns and behaving in a normal way when faced with a situation like that.
A possibility which seems beyond President Trump.
Since this is hell I'll say it: the evidence suggests the only difference between Trump and the school cop's response to this horrible situation is that Trump might be more willing to use a handy kid as a shield rather than a pillar
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Governor Rick Scott's proposals.

Interestingly, he has this to say about arming teachers.

quote:
“I disagree with arming the teachers. My focus is on bringing in law enforcement,” Mr Scott said. “Let law enforcement do the keeping us safe and let teachers focus on teaching”.
But see here as well.

quote:
The Republican-controlled state legislature rallied behind Mr Scott’s framework, releasing legislation that tracked with his proposals and would also impose a 3-day waiting period for buying guns. Breaking with Mr Scott, legislators backed allowing trained and certified teachers to carry firearms on campus.

 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... It's not that the ones in the uniforms are poorly paid (they often are): it's the public service ethos that's the problem. Some poorly trained, badly paid, out-sourced worker isn't going to put their life on the line, or suffer employment-ending injuries, if they know they're not valued or protected during the rest of their working hours.
Very fair comment, and of course the Orange Cookie-Monster has leapt in with accusations of cowardice. They may or may not be fair, but he wasn't there, and would he have risked his life if he had been?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Florida is the home of the "Stand Your Ground" law, and famously screwy about guns. That and the hurricanes keep a lot of people away.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Wayne LaPierre has no theology degree and is in fact a minion of Moloch. Child sacrifice is OK with him.
There is a very, very hot corner of hell specially prepared for him. Now, if only someone would send him there.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... It's not that the ones in the uniforms are poorly paid (they often are): it's the public service ethos that's the problem. Some poorly trained, badly paid, out-sourced worker isn't going to put their life on the line, or suffer employment-ending injuries, if they know they're not valued or protected during the rest of their working hours.
Very fair comment, and of course the Orange Cookie-Monster has leapt in with accusations of cowardice. They may or may not be fair, but he wasn't there, and would he have risked his life if he had been?
Of course not. That is clearly a 'for me not you' issue. I get to duck and cover, you get to risk your neck; also I get budget deficits and you don't.
In the US a security guard (say, at a mall) gets paid little more than minimum wage. If you have a security clearance, you can get more. And if you are an armed security guard, you have to get a license, and are paid yet more, but you have to keep up your certification, prove you can hit a target, and so forth. It's not like they can just slap you into a uniform, hand you a gun and you're good to go. Nevertheless, even an armed guard is not paid all that well. $20 an hour, perhaps? (I could ask my son, who used to be a security guard.) In the US it is no princely wage, any more than being in the armed forces is. (There are members of the armed forces who are eligible for food assistance.) There is not a lot of motivation to risk your life.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Of course not. That is clearly a 'for me not you' issue. I get to duck and cover, you get to risk your neck; also I get budget deficits and you don't.[/QB]
How dare you, Brenda!! Next thing you know, you will be charging Fearless Leader with cowardly ducking the draft claiming heel spurs!
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
How dare you, Brenda!! Next thing you know, you will be charging Fearless Leader with cowardly ducking the draft claiming heel spurs!
Yes, it's odd that. One would have thought the military would have been particularly keen to enlist the services of someone who had been to a military academy.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Now, if only someone would send him there.
Yeah, let's not venture too far into 'Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?' territory, OK? Ideation with suggested intent is a dangerous concept to uncork.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
My son reports that a security guard licensed to carry arms is paid about $17 an hour. (His $20 rate was high and immediately fell to $14.) I will point out that this is not really enough to live on in a major metro area. They would pay you less in, oh, rural Georgia.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... It's not that the ones in the uniforms are poorly paid (they often are): it's the public service ethos that's the problem. Some poorly trained, badly paid, out-sourced worker isn't going to put their life on the line, or suffer employment-ending injuries, if they know they're not valued or protected during the rest of their working hours.
Very fair comment, and of course the Orange Cookie-Monster has leapt in with accusations of cowardice. They may or may not be fair, but he wasn't there, and would he have risked his life if he had been?
Trump wasn't even brave enough to face the possibility of being drafted to fight in Vietnam, and then criticised the war record of the hardy souls who did.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Tweet from one of the Florida survivors:

Sarah Chadwick// #NEVERAGAIN
✔
@sarahchad_

We should change the names of AR-15s to “Marco Rubio” because they are so easy to buy.

These kids have internet skills that we cannot dream of. They'll steamroller the GOP.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Now, if only someone would send him there.
Yeah, let's not venture too far into 'Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?' territory, OK? Ideation with suggested intent is a dangerous concept to uncork.
Perhaps a visit from 3 instructive ghosts, during the night? Worked for Scrooge.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Alan Cresswell

I think a 30 year veteran might be quite well aware that going up a gunman firing a semi automatic rifle with a standard issue police sidearm was hardly an equal contest.

He would probably have guessed AR15. I think that might have given anyone pause for thought.
It rather messes up the NRA claim though that 'the right way to deal with a bad man with a gun is to have a good man with a gun there too'.
It messes up the claim. But, probably only because this individual cop is within the 99+% of the population who are just normal.
Sounds like he had 3 normal buddies with him.

That's 4 pistols (and long guns in every patrol car), but zero testicles.

A staggering, years long list of failures right up to and through the minutes of the actual shooting.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Would they regulate guns if Muslims joined the NRA? The idea apparently parallels Black Panthers taking guns to the California legislative building in 1967 which caused Ronald Ray-gun to ban carrying guns. Flood the NRA with Muslim people.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is an amazing response to an earlier mass shooting. (What loathsome words to type.) It is a free click. Have a hanky ready.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
I'm reading of corporations distancing themselves from and cutting ties with the NRA. Is this usual?

While I share in the admiration of the youth's ability to use media, traditional and social, I fear it will be a hard slog for them with many disappointments. But all power to them.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Tweet from one of the Florida survivors:

Sarah Chadwick// #NEVERAGAIN
✔
@sarahchad_

We should change the names of AR-15s to “Marco Rubio” because they are so easy to buy.

These kids have internet skills that we cannot dream of. They'll steamroller the GOP.
I don't know Sarah but I think I love her
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Alan Cresswell

I think a 30 year veteran might be quite well aware that going up a gunman firing a semi automatic rifle with a standard issue police sidearm was hardly an equal contest.

He would probably have guessed AR15. I think that might have given anyone pause for thought.
It rather messes up the NRA claim though that 'the right way to deal with a bad man with a gun is to have a good man with a gun there too'.
It messes up the claim. But, probably only because this individual cop is within the 99+% of the population who are just normal.
Sounds like he had 3 normal buddies with him.

That's 4 pistols (and long guns in every patrol car), but zero testicles.

A staggering, years long list of failures right up to and through the minutes of the actual shooting.
At Columbine, the entire police force waited almost an hour before entering the school. Some injured students leapt out of windows as they waited for help.

As detailed here different police depts. have different policies on how many officers are needed to respond to a mass shooting. Prior to Columbine, the conventional wisdom is you wait for the entire swat team to arrive so you can enter in force. After the carnage at Columbine, that strategy came into understandable disrepute but it sounds to me like there's not a good replacement.

iow, no one has really come up with a good or effective strategy for taking down someone with an assault weapon shooting indiscriminately.

I certainly wish Officer Peterson had been able to take out Cruz. I suspect he is suffering his own personal hell right now, which is most likely why he resigned. But I cannot say that I would choose differently if I were in his place. Neither can you. No one, regardless of whatever training they may have received, who has not faced this circumstance, can guess what they would do if faced with such a horrible encounter. I wish Officer Peterson nothing but grace.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Hearing T run off at the mouth today, I wondered if the officer can sue T for trashing him so much.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
. No one, regardless of whatever training they may have received, who has not faced this circumstance, can guess what they would do if faced with such a horrible encounter. I wish Officer Peterson nothing but grace.
One can only say with any certainty what one did. Training helps, but it doesn't guarantee. And the level of training a typical police officer receives is not enough for this type of situation.
romanidiot is trolling.
That armed and trained police do not respond properly, misidentify shooters, miss intended targets, etc. how the fuck does any sane person think a teacher is going to do better?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Training helps, but it doesn't guarantee. And the level of training a typical police officer receives is not enough for this type of situation.
Well, quite. Armchair quarterbacking is easy. And think about it - you're a cop in a school (which frankly I find bizarre in the first place, but OK). Your day job is dealing with student fights, petty theft by students, student drug use and so on. You're not expecting to be in a war zone, and you're wearing a gun because it comes with the uniform, and not because you ever expect to have to touch it.

I'm not surprised the officer failed to run into the gunfire.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
He's an easy target to blame ...

But as somebody said, how they can expect one man with a hand gun, to get near an unstable person who might have any sort of weapons. In a large building, without the specific training on how to handle a situation like this.

If he had gone in it could have just ended up in greater carnage.

But hey let's deflect criticism of the whole system onto the little man at the bottom because obviously the system can’t be at fault

[ 24. February 2018, 07:04: Message edited by: Zacchaeus ]
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Attempting to turn that guy into a scapegoat may well turn out be the last straw. That, and the President doing an off the wall hair twirl before talking of arming teachers and judging the security guard to be a coward.

There is talk of a social media wave brewing against the NRA. Many ordinary people, (not just in America), fervently hope this wave turns into a storm and that common sense comes out as the winner.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Emma Gonzales observed that Rick Scott's proposals were promising, but didn't go far enough. In articular, the absence of specific proposals re AR15 and similar semi-automatic weapons using high velocity bullets was a concern.

From what I know and have read, I wouldn't expect folks without body armour, and carrying a side-arm only, to just charge in and take on anyone spraying bullets from an AR15. There's a fine dividing line between brave and foolhardy. At the very least, that's an "approach with proper caution" issue. That doesn't mean those outside get a pass for not going inside, at least to reconnoitre, but recklessness doesn't help anyone.

romanlion, you know something about AR15s. Would you take on an AR15 shooter, armed only with a sidearm and without any body protection?

[ 24. February 2018, 09:47: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
Another question from a bemused Brit - would standard body armour offer realistic protection against an AR-15?

BBC reports the NRA response to the Florida shootings. Not sure if everybody can see this though.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
Another question from a bemused Brit - would standard body armour offer realistic protection against an AR-15?
It seems to depend on the bullets used. Not sure what the law is saying about that.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Or it might even be more complicated than that.

romanlion talked about getting this type of bullet.

quote:
The fact is that standard 5.56 ammunition — “ball” ammunition with a traditional lead core — can pierce a “bullet proof” vest just as easily as M855, a fact we have conclusively proven through our own testing. So can commonly available .308 Winchester ammunition, one of the most popular “hunting” cartridges in the world. So can .30-06 Springfield, the “traditional” hunting cartridge in the United States. In fact, almost every full-size and even every intermediate rifle caliber is perfectly capable of piercing the bullet proof vest worn by police officers.
All the more reason for caution, I'd say.

[ 24. February 2018, 10:50: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
Another question from a bemused Brit - would standard body armour offer realistic protection against an AR-15?
Not much. Standard body armour can be penetrated by rifle rounds. You can buy body armour which has heavy plates that aren't penetrated by a standard .30-06 round fired from a rifle (as well as 5.56 NATO), but it's heavy and cumbersome to wear, and so most police officers don't wear it.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Yes.

"The answer to a bad man with a semi-automatic AR15 (or equivalent) is .... what exactly?". Wayne Lapierre is talking bollocks.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Is there any reason why they can't deploy drones and take out the bad man with a Hellfire? The trials in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan seem to be conclusive.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Mini-drones (about wren-size) equipped with camera, laser and some kind of firearm? You'd have to get them in there pretty quick.

Nope, prevention is better than rapid response. And should include some banning of both bullets and certain types of guns.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
From what I know and have read, I wouldn't expect folks without body armour, and carrying a side-arm only, to just charge in and take on anyone spraying bullets from an AR15. There's a fine dividing line between brave and foolhardy. At the very least, that's an "approach with proper caution" issue. That doesn't mean those outside get a pass for not going inside, at least to reconnoitre, but recklessness doesn't help anyone.
An unarmed police officer tried to reason with the Hungerford shooter and got himself killed for his trouble. Guy was a real hero. But SOP is to radio for back up and wait for the tactical unit to come in and sort things out.

I may be repeating myself here a little bit ("surely not! "I hear you all cry) but the answer to a bad guy with a gun is a group of trained and skilled personnel with guns and, realistically, you cannot establish such at every school in the US. More to the point, to do such would be to concede that school shootings were a fact of life, like litter in the playground. So you have semi-retired cops or security guards knocking around the place or half arsed suggestions that teachers should be packing heat, or the idiot commentator who suggested, after Sandy Hook, that toddlers should be trained to rush the gunman. Basically, there are two options, either you restrict access to assault rifles and the like or you reconcile yourself to this sort of slaughter on a regular basis. It's a rare occasion on which I thank God for Margaret Thatcher and John Major but they were moral giants compared to the current US Republican Party.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Boycott.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
What amazes me is that so many major companies with which Americans regularly do business (and even consider essential) were in bed with these succubi in the first place.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The NRA was not always a minion of Moloch. Within living memory, it was merely the national office of gun clubs. They taught kids about cleaning hunting rifles, and did target shooting. They were harmless. Many of these ties date from then.

None of these 'sponsorships' really amount to much. So you get a 5% discount on your Avis car rental -- you have a similar discount with your Auto Club membership, your military ID, your teacher ID, or your membership in the AARP (the old people's group) or a buyers' club. It's a very common member benefit, costing the association nothing and the car rental company (or whatever) very little. (You can get a similar 5% discount on the Avis web site, or by renting the car when you book the airplane ticket or hotel room.) They are mainly an exercise in PR. The association gets 'benefits' to list under 'benefits of membership' and Avis gets to run its logo past more eyeballs.

So: Although it's good for these other businesses to sever ties with the NRA, it's not going to damage the NRA's bottom line. Much more useful is the ick factor. Nobody will play with you any more, you have cooties now. With luck this will translate over to congresspersons. I look for signs at campaign events, that big dollar donation amount plus the caption "The Price the NRA Paid for Your Soul." Or, another good one, "An A from the NRA? An F from Me!"

[ 24. February 2018, 15:22: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
What amazes me is that so many major companies with which Americans regularly do business (and even consider essential) were in bed with these succubi in the first place.
The ones listed in the article are not doing business with the NRA. They are offering discounts to NRA members. Same as they do to other fee-gathering lobbyists who fleece members who vote against the betterment of general society.
Not an attack on the elderly, just a reality check.
Business will do what they think will increase their revenue. Morals typically don't.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The NRA was not always a minion of Moloch. Within living memory, it was merely the national office of gun clubs. They taught kids about cleaning hunting rifles, and did target shooting. They were harmless. Many of these ties date from then. ...
My father was a longtime member; he was a hunter (we used to eat ducks and geese that he and my grandfather shot for special dinners) and black-powder target shooter. He didn't think much of the increasing politicization of the group, and he saw no reason for any civilian to own a semi-automatic weapon.

He taught my brother and me to shoot early on, and to respect and take proper care of firearms.

I have hesitated to mention this, but I once defended myself with a handgun. As a young woman, I was living in a gentrifying neighborhood, in a building with sub-par security. There were rapes in the building, and the Pater loaned me a revolver. One morning at about 2 a.m., the door to my studio apartment creaked open. I sat up and cocked the revolver - which didn't need cocking, but I was mostly interested in his going away without my being a victim. He did, with amazing alacrity. I moved soon after, and returned the revolver to my father.

I believe in the rights of hunters, and to self-defense, but not without serious regulation and licensing. No civilian needs a semi-automatic rifle. The NRA went off the deep end decades ago with this stuff, forgetting their core mission. They deserve all the opprobrium that's being hurled at them.

[Edited because I missed a typo despite preview. Dang.]

[ 24. February 2018, 16:32: Message edited by: Rossweisse ]
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
Wayne La Pierre's speech was excruciatingly painful to hear. He contends that gun control is a means of tyranny and threatens to enslave liberty-loving Americans. I look at the countries with strict gun control from Japan to Australia to Europe and Canada, and as far as I know, their citizens do not seem to be enslaved, but enjoy the freedom of not being shot at by a semi-automatic rifle. Oh the tyranny of attending a school free from the threat of gun violence?

What is La Pierre's smoking? I would rather choose the "tyranny" of socialism that leaves my children safe and free from gun violence, then the American freedom of gun rights that have resulted in innocent people in their graves.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
I hope La Pierre is carrying on like a lunatic because he's afraid of losing some of his grotesquely oversized influence with government. I hope he's not really that nuts.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I hope La Pierre is carrying on like a lunatic because he's afraid of losing some of his grotesquely oversized influence with government. I hope he's not really that nuts.
IIRC, he is one of the people of the coup that changed the direction of the NRA.
He is that nuts.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I hope La Pierre is carrying on like a lunatic because he's afraid of losing some of his grotesquely oversized influence with government. I hope he's not really that nuts.
IIRC, he is one of the people of the coup that changed the direction of the NRA.
He is that nuts.
I suppose, if we are serious about keeping people who are not mentally well from guns, then that would entitle disarming most of the current leadership of the NRA.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I hope La Pierre is carrying on like a lunatic because he's afraid of losing some of his grotesquely oversized influence with government. I hope he's not really that nuts.
IIRC, he is one of the people of the coup that changed the direction of the NRA.
He is that nuts.
I suppose, if we are serious about keeping people who are not mentally well from guns, then that would entitle disarming most of the current leadership of the NRA.
And a significant portion of their membership.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I'm sure it's some kind of blind spot. It really isn't that difficult to consider the risk factors objectively. But a dogmatic belief in the Second Amendment seems to get in the way somehow.

"Gundamentalist" is an illuminating term.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
From the Post, a rural American explains why guns are natural in his area.

Remember that the NRA is now the mask of the gun manufacturers. Hunters, ordinary people with guns, etc. are not who they serve. There is no problem in creation that Wayne LaPierre would not tell you could be improved by you buying a gun. Nothing! Can't knit a cable sweater? Plumbing issues? Fired from your job? A gun will help you with that.

Meanwhile the Horror of MarALago tells us that arming teachers would be very inexpensive. But he promised us that Mexicans would pay for that wall, so believe him if you like.

[ 24. February 2018, 23:00: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:

Remember that the NRA is now the mask of the gun manufacturers. Hunters, ordinary people with guns, etc. are not who they serve. There is no problem in creation that Wayne LaPierre would not tell you could be improved by you buying a gun. Nothing! Can't knit a cable sweater? Plumbing issues? Fired from your job? A gun will help you with that.
If the American MSM had more of a backbone, it could remind the public that the NRA is the lobby group of gunmakers and hold their spokespersons accountable by asking questions such as
"Why should we ever take you seriously given, that you make money off selling dangerous weapons to people?"

The young people from Florida are the only ones who actually are asking the tough questions. Part of the brokenness of American democracy IMHO, is in fact the weakness of the mainstream media as a voice speaking truth to power.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I would say rather that the myth of the NRA's overwhelming power was due to be punctured. But it took a little child to say out loud that the emperor had no clothes.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Training helps, but it doesn't guarantee. And the level of training a typical police officer receives is not enough for this type of situation.
Well, quite. Armchair quarterbacking is easy. And think about it - you're a cop in a school (which frankly I find bizarre in the first place, but OK). Your day job is dealing with student fights, petty theft by students, student drug use and so on. You're not expecting to be in a war zone, and you're wearing a gun because it comes with the uniform, and not because you ever expect to have to touch it.

I'm not surprised the officer failed to run into the gunfire.
The news last night answered a question I'd been wondering about: Did the officer at least call the dispatcher and fill them in? He reportedly did call a couple of times and give info on the situation.

So he didn't just go all "deer in headlights" and freeze. Whether or not he should've gone in the building, he did do at least part of his job.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Wayne La Pierre's speech was excruciatingly painful to hear. He contends that gun control is a means of tyranny and threatens to enslave liberty-loving Americans.
Unfortunately, that's a sacred., foundational tenet for many people. WLP speaks about that in an especially extreme way. ISTM many more gun owners who are saner would be alarmed if the gov't came for guns. And many people who aren't even gun owners.

As I've mentioned, a lot of this goes back to our country's mythology about itself. Pioneers; taming the land; protecting self, family, and property. Manifest Destiny. God over-seeing it all. And it's fundamentally unAmerican to trust the gov't, especially the federal. Even one or two of the Founders wrote that the US might need a bloody internal revolution, from time to time, to refresh the tree of patriotism. (Or something like that.)

quote:
I look at the countries with strict gun control from Japan to Australia to Europe and Canada, and as far as I know, their citizens do not seem to be enslaved, but enjoy the freedom of not being shot at by a semi-automatic rifle. Oh the tyranny of attending a school free from the threat of gun violence?

What is La Pierre's smoking? I would rather choose the "tyranny" of socialism that leaves my children safe and free from gun violence, then the American freedom of gun rights that have resulted
in innocent people in their graves.
Cold war. Socialism is bad. American exceptionalism. Culture clash with many socialist countries. Etc. Doesn't work to tell us to be like some other country. *Might* make some progress with "you know, we ran into that problem, too; we found this approach helped; might be worth a try, until you come up with something else; you'll adapt it and improve upon it; but it might help"--if said without any sarcasm.

TBH, I've been hoping that the Australian PM did something like that, privately, during his recent visit with T.

There are lots of trip wires in this area. It's not at all simple.

Unfortunately. [Votive]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
From the Post, a rural American explains why guns are natural in his area.
How do they feel about bazookas and grenades?

On the teachers with guns, does this include the schools with nuns as teachers? If a student brings a gun to school, just for self-protection mind you, because bullies etc., does the nun get to shoot them if she draws first. There's gotta be a movie in here somewhere.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
From the Post, a rural American explains why guns are natural in his area.

This may be unfair, but I call bullshit on that article. I live in a rural state too. My friends, neighbors, and countrypersons talk about guns all the time, albeit "talk" is actually more like "argue," and sometimes ratchets up to "yelling."

What's different about the region where I live is that it's among the least religiously-observant populations in the US. Despite being invaded, er, settled, by Europeans trying to found a theocracy, New England is no longer much in thrall to the ask-no-questions, harbor-no-doubts model of fundamentalist Christianity.

So it's not solely the guns-are-part-of-rural-life issue that holds here; it's that guns are part of rural life where people have surrendered their critical faculties due to indoctrination by anti-intellectual cults.

In short, the fundamentalist corners of the culture also play an important role in the worship of Moloch.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

TBH, I've been hoping that the Australian PM did something like that, privately, during his recent visit with T.
I'd hope so too, but our PM is not exactly standing for anything at the moment. Perhaps it's easier to bring up things in private talks, though.

I know this is Hell, but I wish you all well. I cannot get into the mindset of those in the NRA, or in the pay of the NRA.

I was struck by the use of Moloch here. But it's a perfect term know I think upon it.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
[...] On the teachers with guns, does this include the schools with nuns as teachers? [...]
They would have to put up signs: Caution, this is a Nun Gun Area.

(Alas, a No Gun area would be preferable!)
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Rossweisse, thanks for sharing that personal story about using the revolver to protect yourself. One supposes there is a world of difference between the temporary, reluctant possession, and possible use, of a hand-gun to protect oneself in an ongoing situation of threat - such as you found yourself in; and accumulating a stash of automatic war weapons just because it's possible to do so, for whatever reason, or no reason at all.

It's important to be reminded that there are some tricky nuances to the wider question of possession of guns, as foreign as the whole concept may seem to many of us.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Rossweisse's story reminds me of a similar one from my late godmother.

She was a doctor working in the remote tribal lands of what is now Iran (on a similar basis to the way Medecins sans Frontieres now work). I was discussing her experiences with her years ago, when she told me that she had woken up one night to hear the distnct sounds of somebody trying to gain access to her tent. I said something like "Good Lord, what did you do?". She replied "I reached for my revolver and fired a couple of rounds through the tent roof."

Presumably the tent needed re-waterproofing. And separately, she got involved in a couple of ambushes and was shot up twice, once very seriously. But she survived. She was never a fan of guns in any form.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
I inherited the revolver (a .38 Special) and kept it, because I live alone, and I'm a physically small woman with a serious disease. It's locked up, but I can get to it if I need it.

My brother got all the hunting long guns when our father sold the house; he lives in Alaska, and uses them to put food on the table. He doesn't have any semi-automatic rifles.
 
Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :
 
The problem about these anecdotes about how guns have stopped crimes, deterred assaults etc is that they are outweighed by the data about how many people shoot themselves or an innocent bystander by accident; have the gun stolen and used in the commission of a crime; provide a relatively easy way to commit suicide; are picked up adn fired by a child etc etc. Statistically, having a gun doesn't make you safer, it makes you more likely to die or kill someone else. (This possibly doesn't hold true in the middle of nowhere with wild animals around, but in the modern US it certainly does).
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I have no doubt that having a weapon can deter or de-escalate a crime.

I also have no doubt that having one can provoke or escalate one dramatically.

It's a crap shoot, and I'd rather be a fight involving fists than guns.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The obvious escalation is the use of guns itself.

In the UK, the vast majority of criminals do not carry a gun, wouldn't even think of it. A burglar may have a screwdriver or crowbar, used as a tool to enter a house, which could be used as an improvised weapon as needed. But, a gun wouldn't be needed.

However, if there's a chance the owner of the house has a gun then the burglar is more likely to feel the need to have a gun. The more chance there is that the burglar is armed, then the more important it seems for the owner to have a gun. And, so the burglar is more likely to feel the need for a gun ... and round and around it goes escalating upwards, an arms race. And, it just accelerates when it's easy for a criminal to get a gun - buying one from the local sports store, or taking it from the bedside table of the house he did the night before.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
At the time the wealthy men wrote the American constitution they were pretty much all slave owners weren't they?
Yup, another God-given right.
In the movie musical "1776", there's a great scene where the Founding Guys are arguing over details, especially slavery. It's mostly the Northerners who are against it. But one of the Southerners calls them on their hypocrisy, singing about "rum, Bibles, and slaves", because the Northerners benefit from the products of slavery, even if they don't actually own anyone. The anti-slavery folks are mortified, and cave in about slavery.

Really, really good film. Probably online.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
they are outweighed by the data about how many people shoot themselves or an innocent bystander by accident; have the gun stolen and used in the commission of a crime; provide a relatively easy way to commit suicide; are picked up adn fired by a child etc etc. Statistically, having a gun doesn't make you safer, it makes you more likely to die or kill someone else.
And the problem with that (correct) statistic is that it is easy to think that other people are idiots. I'm not going to handle my gun carelessly, or leave it lying around, or kill myself, so the statistic doesn't really apply to me.

And although there's an element of truth in this (yes, some people are idiots, and some people are much more careless than others), people in general suck at estimating risk.

[ 26. February 2018, 04:32: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
One interesting thing to emerge from the latest US school shooting is just how widely the tentacles of the NRA spread through companies many people use day-to-day without giving a thought that they may be in bed with Wayne LePierre and his merry men.

For example, THIS (half-way down titled Trigger Warning) in today's Times alerted me to the involvement of Amazon in spreading something called NRATV. The likes of Apple, Facebook and YouTube are also apparently relaxed about being linked to the promoters of weapons for all.

Time for us all to look more closely at the company we keep?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Interesting interviews on Fareed Zakaria (CNN) this morning. One of the contributors observed that there was no conflict between the Second Amendment and gun control; historically there had been pretty strict gun control laws in the 1930s and also in the period immediately following the establishment of the Constitution. The real issues were the power of the NRA to foster resistance to gun control laws, and the US gun culture which supported the NRA lobbying.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
THIS (half-way down titled Trigger Warning) in today's Times
It doesn't aid conversation when you link to a news article behind a paywall.

DT
HH
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I have no way of knowing if something is behind a paywall: I have a subscription so it doesn't come up for me - sorry.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
The bit you can't see referred to above can be summarised thus:

First, the columnist noted their recent discovery that Amazon distributes programmes for NRATV: had a look to explore and described it as being like Netflix for firearms enthusiasts, then went on to name a couple of shows.

Informed that some shows were sponsored by Smith on things like the best handguns for women, the best camo fashion for hunters, and "We all remember our first shot...". Melanie Reid described it as giving her the spur to cancel her subscription to an Amazon service and urges readers to do likewise.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
At the time the wealthy men wrote the American constitution they were pretty much all slave owners weren't they?
Yup, another God-given right.
In the movie musical "1776", there's a great scene where the Founding Guys are arguing over details, especially slavery. It's mostly the Northerners who are against it. But one of the Southerners calls them on their hypocrisy, singing about "rum, Bibles, and slaves", because the Northerners benefit from the products of slavery, even if they don't actually own anyone. The anti-slavery folks are mortified, and cave in about slavery.

Really, really good film. Probably online.
It is - here's the song:
Molasses to Rum to Slaves
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
I'm not as sympathetic to the school security guard as some. He wasn't hired and armed with a gun in order to sniff out marijuana use or lecture bullies, teachers can do that, his primary reason to be there was to stop an armed shooter.

I'm sure he was questioned extensively about his willingness to confront a shooter before he was hired, even the other law enforcement people have said his immediate duty was to find the killer and take him out. It seems he was not alone in his cowardice, either, and that he and two other deputies hid behind cars with their guns drawn, for 4-5 minutes, waiting for the gunman to finish shooting children and walk out.

But this just proves again that guns don't protect people, people protect people -- it was the unarmed teachers who deliberately placed their bodies between the shooter and the kids who were the heroes who saved lives.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I strongly dislike the word ‘coward’.

None of us knows how we would react in such extreme circumstances.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm not as sympathetic to the school security guard as some. He wasn't hired and armed with a gun in order to sniff out marijuana use or lecture bullies, teachers can do that, his primary reason to be there was to stop an armed shooter.
No.

His primary job was to be an armed presence at the school, to deter an armed shooter.

Rather than blaming him for not facing down a vastly-superiorly armed student, we should perhaps look at the policy decisions that had clearly failed in the lead up to that point.

A lock, a reinforced door, a bollard, a checkpoint, do not prevent attacks. They are there as a deterrent and to give people time to respond (usually by running away if they're sensible).

And in this case, the deterrent wasn't enough. Cruz had been a student at the school and knew there was an armed guard on duty. He was more prepared than the guard.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Twilight, I have had annual training in handling out of control young people. This training is partly to train us to deescalate and/or to try to preempt situations, but it also includes restraint techniques, both moving and holding. Everyone at that employer had that training. I have had to remove students from situations or restrain them from leaving rooms, help others restrain young people from attacking others, several times. It's not easy and we have always had a number of members of staff who have been unable to apply the holds correctly if at all. It is a regular feedback after incidents that some members of staff are required to retrain immediately.

This is MAPA - management of actual and potential aggression - not handling guns.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:


I'm sure he was questioned extensively about his willingness to confront a shooter before he was hired, even the other law enforcement people have said his immediate duty was to find the killer and take him out. It seems he was not alone in his cowardice, either, and that he and two other deputies hid behind cars with their guns drawn, for 4-5 minutes, waiting for the gunman to finish shooting children and walk out.

When Trump shows something other than bluster I'll let him talk about cowardice. A total of five draft deferments shows that he did all that was possible to stay out of harm's way, whilst another, probably poorer and darker-skinned guy went to Vietnam in his place.

I hope that guy came home and is a position to slap some sense and humility into Trump. Then again, how many soldiers would want someone like Trump in their platoon?

[ 26. February 2018, 13:13: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
His primary job was to be an armed presence at the school, to deter an armed shooter.
It's quite possible that even that's pressing the case a bit. His primary role was to be a symbolic presence so that politicians could claim "we're keeping your kids safe" and hence avoid risking the NRA golden hen by talking about guns.

As a deterrent, much less an effective force to take down a shooter, a single cop wouldn't be very much good. The gunman could have easily decided to take him out first, the death toll would have started with one cop who didn't even have time to draw his gun. Once in the building, a single cop wouldn't have been able to do much, even if the gunman had something less lethal than a semi-automatic. Locating the gun man wouldn't be easy - yes, there would be gunfire, but the sound echoing off walls wouldn't be easy to pinpoint. There would be class rooms of kids, he could have escorted them out ... but without knowing where the gunman is (or if there's more than one) would he be sending them to safety or towards danger? I can't see what he could have done - in many ways the only sensible response is to wait until enough support has arrived that you can go systematically through the building simultaneously escorting out the kids and searching for the gun man. One guy won't be able to do that, four guys probably not, especially without specialist training.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
He was there for the parents. So that the school authorities could point to him and say, "Look, we have an armed guard. We are alert and on the job!"

An armed policeman also turns up on Sundays at our church. He is not a worshipper, he's on guard. Against what they won't tell us.

An annoying interview on NPR this morning with the governor of Kentucky, in town for the US governors' conference. He says the issue cannot be analyzed until emotions have died down. The radio host pointed out that there is a shooting about once a week, and when is this time going to come? Well it isn't now; the governor was certain about that. Later!

So, one of the signs I am going to paint for the march next month: NOW IS THE TIME. Also, CAN YOU HEAR THE PEOPLE SING? and, courtesy of Barack Obama, WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR YOU.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
One of my daughters was formerly a schoolteacher. She restrained a disturbed child from attacking other pupils, and was observed by a parent from the school gate, who reported her to the police as a child abuser. After interviewng her, the officer concluded that there was no case to answer. But it was an unpleasant experience. At least no guns were involved.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Mr Trump calling the deputy on duty at the Florida school a coward shows the depths of his ignorance.

No one knows how they will react under fire until it actually happens. If you ask members of the armed forces, they'll tell you that a surprisingly large number of infantry troops don't actually fire their weapon the first time they come under hostile fire - it doesn't denote cowardice, just the fact that the theory, even on a firing range or playing war-games, is vastly different from the real thing.

Of course, the bone-spur survivor in the White House probably knows different, what with his huge personal experience of being under live hostile fire.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm not as sympathetic to the school security guard as some. He wasn't hired and armed with a gun in order to sniff out marijuana use or lecture bullies, teachers can do that, his primary reason to be there was to stop an armed shooter.

I'm sure he was questioned extensively about his willingness to confront a shooter before he was hired, even the other law enforcement people have said his immediate duty was to find the killer and take him out. It seems he was not alone in his cowardice, either, and that he and two other deputies hid behind cars with their guns drawn, for 4-5 minutes, waiting for the gunman to finish shooting children and walk out.

But this just proves again that guns don't protect people, people protect people -- it was the unarmed teachers who deliberately placed their bodies between the shooter and the kids who were the heroes who saved lives.
And unless he was a highly skilled marksman there is every chance that a child could have got caught in the crossfire.
Trying to hit a moving target, when you are not trained to do so and one who has superior firepower to you, is a disaster waiting to happen.

Even the specialist firearms police here wait until they have all the information before going in.
They do not run gung-ho into a large building full of civilians, without a plan

I don’t know what people expect one badly trained civilian to do in a situation like this.
Sounds like everyone would feel better if he’d run into the building and got himself killed and maybe a few more kids at the same time..
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:


I'm sure he was questioned extensively about his willingness to confront a shooter before he was hired, even the other law enforcement people have said his immediate duty was to find the killer and take him out. It seems he was not alone in his cowardice, either, and that he and two other deputies hid behind cars with their guns drawn, for 4-5 minutes, waiting for the gunman to finish shooting children and walk out.

When Trump shows something other than bluster I'll let him talk about cowardice. A total of five draft deferments shows that he did all that was possible to stay out of harm's way, whilst another, probably poorer and darker-skinned guy went to Vietnam in his place.

I hope that guy came home and is a position to slap some sense and humility into Trump. Then again, how many soldiers would want someone like Trump in their platoon?
What does Trump have to do with what I said about the school's security guard?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
An example of a famous coward howling for other people to be brave. Like Wayne LaPierre, who was able to evade service in Vietnam by claiming mental issues. He is careful to attend events only where guns are banned, how very mysterious.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm not as sympathetic to the school security guard as some. He wasn't hired and armed with a gun in order to sniff out marijuana use or lecture bullies, teachers can do that, his primary reason to be there was to stop an armed shooter.

I'm sure he was questioned extensively about his willingness to confront a shooter before he was hired, even the other law enforcement people have said his immediate duty was to find the killer and take him out. It seems he was not alone in his cowardice, either, and that he and two other deputies hid behind cars with their guns drawn, for 4-5 minutes, waiting for the gunman to finish shooting children and walk out.

But this just proves again that guns don't protect people, people protect people -- it was the unarmed teachers who deliberately placed their bodies between the shooter and the kids who were the heroes who saved lives.
And unless he was a highly skilled marksman there is every chance that a child could have got caught in the crossfire.
Trying to hit a moving target, when you are not trained to do so and one who has superior firepower to you, is a disaster waiting to happen.

Even the specialist firearms police here wait until they have all the information before going in.
They do not run gung-ho into a large building full of civilians, without a plan

I don’t know what people expect one badly trained civilian to do in a situation like this.
Sounds like everyone would feel better if he’d run into the building and got himself killed and maybe a few more kids at the same time..
Why insist on a scenario where he does his job badly? He was hired and trained to protect the children and he made no attempt to do it. The sheriff himself says he was not supposed to wait for back-up. There are other options besides running wildly into the crowd firing away. He could have tried to locate the shooter and then take another route so as to sneak up behind him. From what I've read, the shooter shot in downstairs classrooms first, going from room to room in the empty halls, then went upstairs to other rooms. If the guard had slipped inside the school he might have had several opportunities to shoot the killer while he went from one room to another or on the stairs.

It's the not even trying, not even peeking around the door or looking in windows, that bothers me.

The police who responded to Columbine milled around the parking lot "waiting to get all the information they needed," for three hours while students and teachers bled to death. They were later taken to court over their inaction by the victim's families. After that, correct protocol for school shootings was changed to allow some slight chance of saving lives.

The police themselves all say this man did not act correctly. Boogie may not like the word "coward," but I can't think of another way to describe hiding behind a car while kids are being shot after you have volunteered to take a job that requires you to try and save them. We're not talking about civilian teachers or drafted soldiers, but a man who applied for and won that specific position.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
...Wayne LaPierre, who was able to evade service in Vietnam by claiming mental issues. ...
Sounds like a legitimate claim to me.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
An example of a famous coward howling for other people to be brave. Like Wayne LaPierre, who was able to evade service in Vietnam by claiming mental issues. He is careful to attend events only where guns are banned, how very mysterious.
Well I'm not a famous coward so I don't like being compared to one.

I would never apply for a job that required carrying a gun, but if I did agree to take a monthly paycheck for carrying a gun in order to protect school children, I would feel obligated to try and actually earn that money when the occasion arose. If I didn't, I wouldn't expect to be praised for it.

Saying "we don't know how we would act," doesn't mean this man didn't fail to do his job. There were teachers in that school who physically put themselves between the children and danger, something I have actually done on occasion. If we can't call the security guard a coward, how can we call those teachers brave? Our behavior in a crisis is not entirely out of our control.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Those who put themselves in danger to save the children were indeed brave.

Those who didn’t were not cowards imo - it’s not a word I would use of anyone in any circumstance. Your body can shut down in shock and nobody knows how they will react.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
He was hired and trained to protect the children and he made no attempt to do it.
Where is the evidence that he was trained to tackle one (or possibly more) shooters, who were heavily armed, single handed? How many hours a week did he spend practising for the eventuality of needing to move through the school to locate and engage an unknown number of shooters? What sort of experience had he had before getting the assignment, had he shown himself to be cool under fire? To be a crack shot? To be able to quickly assess complex situations? And if so, why was he guarding a school where those skills were very unlikely to be needed rather than pounding the beat of crime ridden neighbourhoods where he was more likely to need to draw his gun and protect himself and others?

As far as I can tell he was not equipped to do so, without body armour (even of dubious value against semi-automatic gunfire). I don't know how things are in the US, but here when we see armed police responding to an incident they a) carry what look like suitable weapons (some form of rifle, not hand guns) with body armour, b) they approach the scene cautiously maintaining cover as much as possible, and c) they do so in teams such that someone can provide covering fire to take down the suspect should they start to shoot at the police. It always looks like a well-practised and rehearsed operation. Something that they spend hours every week practising in different environments.

Put simply, the policy of relying on cops permanently stationed at schools to protect people runs into massive problems because a) you want those cops to be trained and equipped for the job which is very expensive, and b) there are many other places in the same city where those skills could be more effectively used. So, you either spend a lot of money training and equipping cops so you have the staff to have both trained cops at schools, or you prioritise where you deploy your resources - standing around a school where they will probably never be needed on the off-chance, or tackling criminals elsewhere on an almost daily basis. ISTM the most likely explanation for why you've a guy approaching retirement at the school is that the police prioritised their resources to tackle crime elsewhere, and thus this poor guy had not specialist training to tackle a shooter, didn't have the equipment needed, and was probably not picked because he had the temperament needed - because the police (probably rightly) decided that keeping the majority safer by using those really good cops elsewhere made sense.

And, putting yet more un-trained, or inadequately trained, people with guns in the environment is going to do diddly squat to make things any different if potential shooters can easily obtain weapons.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Twilight, you seem to have missed my post above.

I have worked in an environment where we, all staff, were trained to intervene physically in challenging situations. About half the staff would not intervene or did so incorrectly when called to do so. This is physical intervention or restraint of young people acting dangerously in an education unit working with students who were known to be dangerous.

They were supposed not to be armed, as we were supposed to scan them for metal before they were allowed in, but some of the better moments were during the scanning process.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
...Wayne LaPierre, who was able to evade service in Vietnam by claiming mental issues. ...
Sounds like a legitimate claim to me.
There is a vast difference between a highly trained Team of people with full body armour and appropriate weapons waiting 3 hours before going in. And a single poorly trained individual on minimum wage with the wrong weapons, and no body armour, waiting until the appropriate people turned up.
Did he even know the was only one shooter? – have you seen the size of the school, campus – how one man could be expected to search the whole campus to find and kill the shooter I have no idea.
We have hindsight and know where he started and finished – the man on the ground would have found it more difficult to hear where the shots were coming from
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
...Wayne LaPierre, who was able to evade service in Vietnam by claiming mental issues. ...
Sounds like a legitimate claim to me.
That gets a [Overused]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Whether he was a coward appears to me to be a distraction. It's whether he could have made a difference other than adding, one way or the other, to the body count.

And the notion that he could have entered the school, identified the shooter (who, let's not forget, walked out and was only arrested in the local Walmart), and shot them (with a pistol) sufficiently to prevent any further deaths? There's a certain amount of magical thinking involved there.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

His primary job was to be an armed presence at the school, to deter an armed shooter.
I don't think even that is true. His primary job is to deal with low-level crime involving students - theft, drug offences, student brawls, and so on.

On a regular day, he will spend very little of his time actively "guarding" anything.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Oh, I don't doubt that. A school shooting of this kind, for any given school, will be a once-in-a-lifetime event.

The kids will be in more day-to-day danger from the gun the guard is wearing.

But ultimately, if the student with the AR-15 doesn't care there's an armed guard on duty, what you going to do?
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Twilight, you seem to have missed my post above.

I have worked in an environment where we, all staff, were trained to intervene physically in challenging situations. About half the staff would not intervene or did so incorrectly when called to do so. This is physical intervention or restraint of young people acting dangerously in an education unit working with students who were known to be dangerous.

They were supposed not to be armed, as we were supposed to scan them for metal before they were allowed in, but some of the better moments were during the scanning process.
I didn't miss it, I just don't get why it's directed at me. I don't see a lot in common with the scenario you're describing and the man I'm talking about. He was hired precisely for security, and he was required to be armed. He knew his job was to immediately make contact with any shooter inside the school and try to stop him. He was fired days ago for failing to do that.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
So you don't see any connection between people being trained to intervene in stressful situations to protect young people and not being able to when push comes to shove? Even when this is a regular occurrence, initial and annual refresher training is provided to all staff? Whereas a shooting at a school is unlikely to happen more than once in a career.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...: He was hired precisely for security, and he was required to be armed. He knew his job was to immediately make contact with any shooter inside the school and try to stop him.
And, I call bullshit on that. If that actually is the job he was hired to do, then he had been given (and he accepted) an impossible job. You can't blame someone for failing to do the impossible. Or, alternatively you equip them with the ability to do the impossible - extensive enhanced combat training, military grade weapons and body armour (rather than the equivalent of expecting him to take a knife to a gun fight, which is what he had), a clear line of communication with someone who could give him real-time and accurate information on the number of shooters and their location. None of which he had ... and he was left with two options, commit suicide in rushing into an unknown scenario, or face the opprobrium of those who never have, and never will, face that situation. At least he has his life, though he's going to go down in infamy as the poor schmuck who was in the wrong place, at the wrong time, out of his depth, unprepared and untrained for the situation he faced.

There is of course an alternative to the impossible situation, the Kirk approach to the no-win scenario. You change the scenario. You do something about the craziness of a country where kids can legally own military grade hardware, you get the guns out of the hands of those who have no need of them, and you don't have people in schools shooting kids, and you don't have under-trained, under-equipped cops facing the no-win scenario of an active shooter in a school.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
Technically he resigned not fired.

His job title was school resource officer – not to play hide and seek with a mad gunman who had much bigger firepower than him.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Twilight

I think he had a duty to reconnoitre, immediately, what was happening inside the building and on the basis of what he saw decide whether he had a chance of shooting the shooter, or doing more to defend the teachers and children. That doesn't mean he was forced to confront and fire on the shooter. It would depend on whether he had a clear shot from near enough to make it count. At this stage, we can't possibly know that.

I don't know what radio or mobile phone exchanges he had with the police about the situation on the ground. Or whether he got any immediate guidelines about what was best for him to do.

There is going to be an enquiry and I'm holding judgement until more details are known. Meanwhile it is pretty clear to me that, all things being equal, a sidearm up against a semi-automatic is not an equal contest.

romanlion, who knows a lot more about guns than I do, has not answered my question about whether he would go up against a shooter firing a semi-automatic if he had no body armour and only a sidearm. I'm sure the answer is "it depends". Even if you have an obligation as part of your job description, you aren't obliged to be stupid about the ways you fulfill that obligation.

None of this is making excuses for his actions or inactions. Nor am I making any judgment on whether he was some combination of symbolic reassuring presence, and potential fall guy.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
He was hired and trained to protect the children and he made no attempt to do it.
Where is the evidence that he was trained to tackle one (or possibly more) shooters, who were heavily armed, single handed? How many hours a week did he spend practising for the eventuality of needing to move through the school to locate and engage an unknown number of shooters? What sort of experience had he had before getting the assignment, had he shown himself to be cool under fire? To be a crack shot? To be able to quickly assess complex situations? And if so, why was he guarding a school where those skills were very unlikely to be needed rather than pounding the beat of crime ridden neighbourhoods where he was more likely to need to draw his gun and protect himself and others?

As far as I can tell he was not equipped to do so, without body armour (even of dubious value against semi-automatic gunfire). I don't know how things are in the US, but here when we see armed police responding to an incident they a) carry what look like suitable weapons (some form of rifle, not hand guns) with body armour, b) they approach the scene cautiously maintaining cover as much as possible, and c) they do so in teams such that someone can provide covering fire to take down the suspect should they start to shoot at the police. It always looks like a well-practised and rehearsed operation. Something that they spend hours every week practising in different environments.

Put simply, the policy of relying on cops permanently stationed at schools to protect people runs into massive problems because a) you want those cops to be trained and equipped for the job which is very expensive, and b) there are many other places in the same city where those skills could be more effectively used. So, you either spend a lot of money training and equipping cops so you have the staff to have both trained cops at schools, or you prioritise where you deploy your resources - standing around a school where they will probably never be needed on the off-chance, or tackling criminals elsewhere on an almost daily basis. ISTM the most likely explanation for why you've a guy approaching retirement at the school is that the police prioritised their resources to tackle crime elsewhere, and thus this poor guy had not specialist training to tackle a shooter, didn't have the equipment needed, and was probably not picked because he had the temperament needed - because the police (probably rightly) decided that keeping the majority safer by using those really good cops elsewhere made sense.

And, putting yet more un-trained, or inadequately trained, people with guns in the environment is going to do diddly squat to make things any different if potential shooters can easily obtain weapons.
I totally agree that armed guards at schools is a bad idea, but I think if the school has hired one we have a right to expect he try to do what he was hired for. Whether his pay was high or low shouldn't matter when student's lives are at stake.

If he was just there to deal with low level crime he wouldn't need to be armed at all. He was and since the students had all seen "active shooter," training I would imagine he had, too. There's no rule that says you have to have an equal weapon to take on a killer. His handgun could have killed Cruz.

Once again everyone's implying that haste is the worst thing in the world and that first responders at school shootings should all take time to don armor, plan strategy, study school building plans, pass around pictures of the shooter and wait for swat teams. That's ridiculous when these mass shootings only require a few minutes to kill dozens. Sometimes it's best to go in and play things by ear and if that's dangerous that's part of the job.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Yes, the poor devil, all he was was a fig leaf. He could never have supplied any practical protection. One guard is insufficient anyway -- American high schools are vast campuses with miles of corridor.

This will cost you a Post click but is unutterably comic: The Orange Toupee says he would have rushed in to save the students. I believe we have seen this movie. It starred Harrison Ford as the President who was the action hero. As long as you have the script writer on your side and a good stunt double it works fine and makes for a good show.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Folks, you have to remember that Twilight is a creature of honour. She doesn't disagree with any of the facts or extrapolations being discussed. She merely expects that the guard should have died with honour, and that because he didn't it is therefore dishonourable.

The impossibility of it helping matters not one whit. And forgiveness belongs with other useless things like thoughts and prayers.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I would have said this was a spoof site, but it's USA Today reporting that in Iowa you can get a gun permit even if you're blind. I agree, okay? Americans are crazy.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Meanwhile it is pretty clear to me that, all things being equal, a sidearm up against a semi-automatic is not an equal contest.
For reference, many police officer's sidearms are semi-automatic (Glock 9mm pistols are popular). The big difference is handgun vs rifle.

[ 26. February 2018, 19:14: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

If he was just there to deal with low level crime he wouldn't need to be armed at all.
And yet all across America, cops who just deal with low-level crime carry service weapons.

What fraction of US police officers do not routinely carry a gun?
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Folks, you have to remember that Twilight is a creature of honour. She doesn't disagree with any of the facts or extrapolations being discussed. She merely expects that the guard should have died with honour, and that because he didn't it is therefore dishonourable.

The impossibility of it helping matters not one whit. And forgiveness belongs with other useless things like thoughts and prayers.
Where did I imply that he didn't deserve forgiveness? I called him a coward. I don't think being a coward is even close to unforgiveable. I just think "coward," means he lost his nerve when it was important, very human but not ideal, particularly where young lives are concerned.

Neither do I insist he die with honour. I thought he should have made some effort. Crouching behind a car doesn't look like much effort to me. I don't agree with the idea that entering the school was certain, or even likely, suicide. As you say it was a big school and the shooter was not omnipotent no matter how powerful his gun.

Do any of you have any expectations at all from the people we pay to protect us? Should they just get pay checks all year for dressing up and eating donuts, or is it fair to expect them to come through for the big events?

Scot Peterson and the other deputies who did nothing are under examination and criticism from their peers for some reason and I don't think the entire police force is particularly unforgiving -- or adverse to prayer for that matter.
here
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

If he was just there to deal with low level crime he wouldn't need to be armed at all.
And yet all across America, cops who just deal with low-level crime carry service weapons.

What fraction of US police officers do not routinely carry a gun?
What fraction of the US police force do you think is not expected to risk his life in certain situations? I live in a small town with very little crime, but our policemen can and do occasionally go into very dangerous situations and confront criminals with guns.

Even domestic disputes can be deadly. When they knock on the door, they have no way of knowing if the person inside is armed, angry, drunk or all three. Yet they go in, they don't let the woman inside the house deal with it alone for fear of what they might walk into.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Meanwhile it is pretty clear to me that, all things being equal, a sidearm up against a semi-automatic is not an equal contest.
For reference, many police officer's sidearms are semi-automatic (Glock 9mm pistols are popular). The big difference is handgun vs rifle.
On average there are nearly 13,000 handgun homicides a year in the U.S. It's not handgun vs rifle. It's handgun vs soft tissue.

Everyone knew or at least highly suspected who the shooter was. He would have been obvious and making a huge amount of noise with that rifle. It's not magical to think someone with a gun could sneak around behind him and shoot him.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Twilight

Which was my reconnoitre point. He should have looked for an opportunity. There is no guarantee that he would have had one.

So far as comparative firepower is concerned isn't it better to await details. From what little I know a Glock 9mm against an AR15 still isn't an equal contest. But I could be wrong about that.

[ 26. February 2018, 20:27: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This will cost you a Post click but is unutterably comic: The Orange Toupee says he would have rushed in to save the students.
The man is bloody insane. Surely a doctor could section him. I almost drove off the road hearing this on the news this morning.

I think I may've typed out the words "It could not get much worse" on a Trump thread here. Sorry Americans. I had no idea how low he could go.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Twilight, I admit that I was being snarky at you. However, I also think that I helped explain some of your perspective to others on this thread. Clearly, it does not align with how you would want it said, but my belief is that it translates things into their paradigm a little better. Make of that what you will. Regardless of my snark, I consider you an ally on this topic.

On the topic of magic: specifically facing a combat rifle wielding gunman using a small-arms pistol. There are a couple effects that make it particularly harrowing.

First is accuracy. On a shooting range, I can reliably hit a human-sized target with a handgun up to a range of about 6 meters (and I'm being generous by including grazes). On the same range with an AR-15, I can land body-center hits from a standing position to about 10 meters. With the rifle braced, I'm good to more like 40 meters. And I suck, comparatively.

Second is power. 9mm rounds can penetate interior walls and desk-like objects, but their lethality is massively reduced. Meanwhile, rifle rounds will happily penetrate doors, desks, cars, and people. There is no such thing as cover, other than visually, outside of concrete. Those hero teachers who put themselves between the gunman and students? Those students probably died anyway.

The teeth-gnashing part, for me at least, is that assault weapons are only dangerous to our fellow citizens - they are of exactly zero use for defending against the government. The #gundamentalists are lying to themselves.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Hmm.

I thought it was about comparative accuracy and bullet power.

One man's courage is another's foolhardiness. One man's cowardice is another man's prudence.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This will cost you a Post click but is unutterably comic: The Orange Toupee says he would have rushed in to save the students.
The man is bloody insane. Surely a doctor could section him. I almost drove off the road hearing this on the news this morning.

I think I may've typed out the words "It could not get much worse" on a Trump thread here. Sorry Americans. I had no idea how low he could go.
I've two reactions. First is that arm chair bravery is so effing commendable (or video game and movie watching). Such a brave prezzie. Make America brave again!

Second, is please do rush in, any time there's a shooting, please do rush right in! And hurry! Go trumpy go! Show us how it's done you brave widdle boy!
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
...The #gundamentalists are lying to themselves.
Well put. Thank you, RooK.
 
Posted by Ann (# 94) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

... He would have been obvious and making a huge amount of noise with that rifle. It's not magical to think someone with a gun could sneak around behind him and shoot him.
I work in a building by an airfield. When one of the aircraft has its engine running, the sound reverberates and echoes off all the buildings around us. It's impossible to tell which direction the noise is coming from, even when you know where the runway is. As I walk to the carpark, at one point on my route, I can hear the aircraft sounding from the complete opposite direction. (It quite fascinates me that I can turn on the spot and still my guess would have been completely wrong.) When I get past the buildings, I can hear and see the aircraft on the taxiway so I know I wasn't hearing something in the air.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This will cost you a Post click but is unutterably comic: The Orange Toupee says he would have rushed in to save the students.
The man is bloody insane. Surely a doctor could section him. I almost drove off the road hearing this on the news this morning.

I think I may've typed out the words "It could not get much worse" on a Trump thread here. Sorry Americans. I had no idea how low he could go.
We must give up on saying that. It is tempting Providence. "Oh yeah? Hold my beer."
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

So far as comparative firepower is concerned isn't it better to await details. From what little I know a Glock 9mm against an AR15 still isn't an equal contest. But I could be wrong about that.
No, it's not. You're not wrong. My point was that it wasn't a comparison between a "semi-automatic weapon" and a handgun: both the AR-15 and many officer's sidearms are semi-automatic.

As RooK points out, there's a huge difference in accuracy. This is basic physics - it's easier to point a long thing at a target than a short thing. (Plus a couple of ballistics features involving long barrel vs short barrel.) This is why you don't get into a handgun vs rifle shootout - you'll be dead before you get into effective range.

Unless, of course, you do what Twilight suggests, which is sneak up behind the shooter in your stockinged feet and kill him. That sounds rather more like the plot of a Bruce Willis movie than like a plan that might actually work, but I suppose there's always a chance.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ann:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

... He would have been obvious and making a huge amount of noise with that rifle. It's not magical to think someone with a gun could sneak around behind him and shoot him.
I work in a building by an airfield. When one of the aircraft has its engine running, the sound reverberates and echoes off all the buildings around us. It's impossible to tell which direction the noise is coming from, even when you know where the runway is. As I walk to the carpark, at one point on my route, I can hear the aircraft sounding from the complete opposite direction. (It quite fascinates me that I can turn on the spot and still my guess would have been completely wrong.) When I get past the buildings, I can hear and see the aircraft on the taxiway so I know I wasn't hearing something in the air.
Yes. I didn't mean the shooter could be located by the sound, but that the person sneaking up behind him probably wouldn't be heard because of the sound. The shooter probably would have been obvious because he was the only person in the halls and the only one with a gun.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Twilight


You could be right about dereliction of duty. The guy and the other three have to explain their actions. But I think the facts point in mixed directions. So in my mind I'm cutting all four some slack until all the evidence is out there.

Like Samuel Jackson said, I don't have any experience of a gun fight. So I'm withholding judgment. Seems fair to me.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Unless, of course, you do what Twilight suggests, which is sneak up behind the shooter in your stockinged feet and kill him. That sounds rather more like the plot of a Bruce Willis movie than like a plan that might actually work, but I suppose there's always a chance.
Because it's so much better to let a bunch of kids die than to look silly or take a chance, right, Learning Cniht?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The shooter probably would have been obvious because he was the only person in the halls and the only one with a gun.
Which is precisely why law enforcement does not want teachers carrying guns (or parishioners with concealed carry in our churches). If there are one or more "good guys with a gun" running around in a horrible, chaotic situation, how are they supposed to figure out which one is the "bad guy with a gun"?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Unless, of course, you do what Twilight suggests, which is sneak up behind the shooter in your stockinged feet and kill him. That sounds rather more like the plot of a Bruce Willis movie than like a plan that might actually work, but I suppose there's always a chance.
Because it's so much better to let a bunch of kids die than to look silly or take a chance, right, Learning Cniht?
I don't think "looking silly" was what was giving the police officer pause.

I'm glad you can be so confident about how you would respond in such a situation. Given that the "chance" you're blithely denouncing him for not taking is the very high probability he'd lose his life, I'm not nearly as confident that I'd be part of the very slim percentage of humanity who wouldn't freeze in that situation.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I think I may've typed out the words "It could not get much worse" on a Trump thread here. Sorry Americans. I had no idea how low he could go.
To paraphrase Randy Bachman, I'm sure we ain't seen nothin' yet.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
To paraphrase Randy Bachman, I'm sure we ain't seen nothin' yet.
Randy has an excellent radio show on CBC Radio 1 and 2 Randy Bachman's Vinyl Tap. He uses "Taking Care of Business" as the show's theme.

(Hopefully you can listen if you want, don't know if it's regionally restricted)
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
The officer has defended his actions . According to his lawyer, he believed the shooting was taking place outside the building, not in it, and he took the action he’d been trained to take in those circumstances.

Edited for coding.

[ 27. February 2018, 05:46: Message edited by: Stejjie ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Here is the press release by his lawyer.

No doubt the statement will be subject to detailed checks. I noted that he was accompanied by a security specialist when following up the initial report, and talked to various other people. Along with whatever video evidence exists, there should be means of verifying his statement of events.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I hope someone is keeping an eye on his mental health. People facing a lot of public blame and humiliation sometimes kill themselves.

I bet that, if he had gone in, however that turned out, he would've been criticized for not waiting for backup.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The shooter probably would have been obvious because he was the only person in the halls and the only one with a gun.
From what I understood from early newscasts, he timed or set things up so there would be kids in the hall--class change, maybe. So he'd have a whole lot of targets all at once.

I really doubt that the deputy could've saved the day.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
... This will cost you a Post click but is unutterably comic: The Orange Toupee says he would have rushed in to save the students. ...
With that same altruistic fervour, presumably, that took him to where the bullets were flying thickest in 'Nam
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I hope someone is keeping an eye on his mental health. People facing a lot of public blame and humiliation sometimes kill themselves.

I bet that, if he had gone in, however that turned out, he would've been criticized for not waiting for backup.
Yep - and like everyone involved in this school - he's very likely to have survivor guilt anyway.

AFZ
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Unless, of course, you do what Twilight suggests, which is sneak up behind the shooter in your stockinged feet and kill him. That sounds rather more like the plot of a Bruce Willis movie than like a plan that might actually work, but I suppose there's always a chance.
Because it's so much better to let a bunch of kids die than to look silly or take a chance, right, Learning Cniht?
Or be in entirely the wrong building, or be hunting for a shooter inside while they were outside, or pretty much any scenario in between.

You're being a dick. And not for the first time.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I know this is hell, but this is a very raw subject for many people here, and not just the Americans, for whom it must particularly sting. That means that judgement might be off, and that we might tend to be more vicious than usual. I think it would be useful to treat each other gently, saying what we believe needs to be said, but remembering that none of us have the solution, or the power to implement what we might propose.

Kind Regards

Saint Toad of Simon
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
[Overused] simontoad/st. toad of simon
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I know this is hell, but this is a very raw subject for many people here, and not just the Americans, for whom it must particularly sting. That means that judgement might be off, and that we might tend to be more vicious than usual. I think it would be useful to treat each other gently, saying what we believe needs to be said, but remembering that none of us have the solution, or the power to implement what we might propose.

Kind Regards

Saint Toad of Simon
Thank you. Very important reminder on all sides
[Votive]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
No-one's immune to school shootings. This one is in north-western Saskatchewan. The decision has just been made that the shooter will have an adult versus youth sentence.

The situation as we understand it, is that the shooter shot two brothers in their home and then went to shoot in the school. The RCMP were called and cordoned off the school, and no, they did not go in to the school until they had enough personnel and a plan to do it. Police are not military who are trained to go into a potential firefight. In the Florida situation, the single officer armed with a handgun? Don't think it fits the training for police in general. Though perhaps the USA is different and police are supposed to approach these things like a military combat situation? And in both the Florida situation and LaLoche Saskatchewan situation, did anyone know if there was one shooter or several?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Though perhaps the USA is different and police are supposed to approach these things like a military combat situation?
It would explain why they seem to shoot first and ask questions later any time they respond to a call.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The shooter probably would have been obvious because he was the only person in the halls and the only one with a gun.
Which is precisely why law enforcement does not want teachers carrying guns (or parishioners with concealed carry in our churches). If there are one or more "good guys with a gun" running around in a horrible, chaotic situation, how are they supposed to figure out which one is the "bad guy with a gun"?
One of the students at the school was temporarily mistaken for the shooter. Similar clothes and appearance and he was in a position that it was logical for a shooter to take. A coordinated group of policemen, with weapons pointed at him, took him into custody. Had a single officer, with no backup, seen him, he might well have been shot.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Though perhaps the USA is different and police are supposed to approach these things like a military combat situation?
It would explain why they seem to shoot first and ask questions later any time they respond to a call.
They are taught how to shoot, but not when to refrain. They also are susceptible to the same propaganda that the rest of America is. A person reading or watching American news would see a war zone when crime is actually down, overall.
And they watch the same bullshit films.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
They are taught how to shoot, but not when to refrain. They also are susceptible to the same propaganda that the rest of America is. A person reading or watching American news would see a war zone when crime is actually down, overall.
And they watch the same bullshit films.
It's a combination of things:

• Training that encourages this line of thinking. After the Philando Castile shooting in my area, it came out that the officer had recently attended a training seminar called "Bulletproof Warrior" that trains police to look for signs of impending attack.

• Surplus military equipment (weapons, armored vehicles, etc.) being provided to local law enforcement agencies on loan from the federal government - with the caveat that if they aren't used at least once a year, the federal government can take them back. (This is why the suburbs here all boast armored personnel carriers for SWAT teams that aren't actually needed once in a decade).

• NRA/right-wing propaganda about rising crime rates that is at best misleading, and usually flat-out bullshit. Actual violent crime rates in the US have been falling for many years.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is free, and may enlighten: Why conservatives love guns.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Love Haidt!
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
But not Slate's otherizing implementation of him.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

You're being a dick. And not for the first time.
My opinion of the deputy is based on the informed words of his superior, Sheriff Israel, as reported in Google news a few days ago:

quote:
Peterson was seen on video arriving at the west side of a building, but “he never went in,” Israel said.

Israel said Peterson should have gone in and “addressed the killer, killed the killer.”

Israel added that after seeing the video, hearing witness accounts and getting a statement from Peterson, he suspended the officer without pay pending an internal investigation. Peterson then resigned, he said.
I think the sheriff has more information about what could be fairly expected of the deputy, and what actually happened, than most of us do with our guesses about what percentage of police would freeze in any given situation, or what chances they would be foolish to take, or the odds of a trained deputy shooting an unarmed kid no matter how much he resembled the suspect.

So. I formed an opinion based on the sheriff's opinion. Further evidence may prove the sheriff (and me) wrong. Meanwhile I'm not on the jury in a court of law. I'm not judging him at the Pearly Gates as a good or bad person. I'm just stating my opinion on a message board, of how he acted in a particular situation. If that makes me a dick, and everyone else here a saint for their contrary opinion, then so be it.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm just stating my opinion on a message board, of how he acted in a particular situation. If that makes me a dick, and everyone else here a saint for their contrary opinion, then so be it.
Doesn't make us saints. Still makes you a dick.

You do realise that the cops very nearly opened fire on a similarly-dressed student who wasn't Cruz?

You do realise that Peterson's testimony states baldly that he thought the shooter/s were outside?

You do realise that Israel had absolutely no choice but to throw Peterson under the bus or quit himself?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I think the sheriff has more information about what could be fairly expected of the deputy,
I think the sheriff may well be worried about his own job as he is ultimately responsible for his deputy's actions.
It is psychologically comforting to have a person to blame. If only that person acted properly, things would have been better. This removes some of the fear and the frustration.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

You do realise that Peterson's testimony states baldly that he thought the shooter/s were outside?
There's been testimony in this matter already?

I had no idea.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I think the sheriff has more information about what could be fairly expected of the deputy,
I think the sheriff may well be worried about his own job as he is ultimately responsible for his deputy's actions.
It is psychologically comforting to have a person to blame. If only that person acted properly, things would have been better. This removes some of the fear and the frustration.
And it offsets this embarrassing affront to the NRA's claim that the solution to "bad guys with guns" is "good guys with guns". So turn the ineffectual good guy into a spineless coward and pretend that 99% of the population wouldn't do the exact same thing.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

You do realise that Peterson's testimony states baldly that he thought the shooter/s were outside?
There's been testimony in this matter already?

I had no idea.
If the police and other relevant authorities haven't taken statements from everyone who may have information that's relevant to the investigation then there is something seriously remiss with their handling of the investigation. So, there must have been testimony given, it's just that it hasn't yet been presented to a jury. In the particular case of a police officer who dashed towards gun fire and then waited for information to know where to go next, and has been vilified for not doing the impossible by his boss (who should know better) and the so-called "President" (who should behave better, but we've come to expect spouting off before any facts are known), then he has issued a statement through his lawyer. There's a link further back on this thread.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I suppose we do not know whether Scot Peterson's discussions with the Sheriff prior to his retirement are formally recorded anywhere. Normal HR rules would make some record of those discussions necessary, but whether they included any details of the shooting event, or whether those were the subject of another formal interview, remains to be seen.

Truth is, the police had better have some pertinent records of the accounts of officers and others at the scene, i.e. written, signed and witnessed statements, otherwise their conduct is subject to further criticism.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm just stating my opinion on a message board, of how he acted in a particular situation. If that makes me a dick, and everyone else here a saint for their contrary opinion, then so be it.
Doesn't make us saints. Still makes you a dick.

You do realise that the cops very nearly opened fire on a similarly-dressed student who wasn't Cruz?
What does that have to do with whether or not Peterson acted appropriately?

quote:
You do realise that Peterson's testimony states baldly that he thought the shooter/s were outside?
So he says now, but it seems an odd thing to assume during a school shooting, when the people you are hired to protect are inside the school and you can't actually see the shooter outside the school.

quote:
You do realise that Israel had absolutely no choice but to throw Peterson under the bus or quit himself?
I don't see any proof of that at all. During one of his first press conferences, Israel was praising his troops for the wonderful job they did. Admitting later, that one of them had messed up would be proving himself wrong and wouldn't be in his best interests.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Keep going with the "he could have snuck up on the shooter and ended it". If it wasn't so fucking tragic, it'd be funny.

He could have just as easily shot the wrong guy, been in the wrong building, been shot himself. This is what happens when in chaotic situations. What,eight minutes from start to finish? No, let's just jump in. Peterson may well be a coward. He may well have been given an impossible task at which he could only have failed.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I think the sheriff has more information about what could be fairly expected of the deputy,
I think the sheriff may well be worried about his own job as he is ultimately responsible for his deputy's actions.
It is psychologically comforting to have a person to blame. If only that person acted properly, things would have been better. This removes some of the fear and the frustration.
And it offsets this embarrassing affront to the NRA's claim that the solution to "bad guys with guns" is "good guys with guns". So turn the ineffectual good guy into a spineless coward and pretend that 99% of the population wouldn't do the exact same thing.
Israel is not working for the NRA, many law enforcement men would love to see better gun control.

I'm not sure why you're so convinced that 99% of the population would run and hide when children are under fire. The teachers did not do that. It's also fair to expect law enforcement professionals to be better prepared to step into danger than the rest of us.. It's part of their job, and it's something they would have been asked about and had time to think about before an event. If you can find evidence that 99% of the police force freezes in the face of gun fire I'll be surprised.

There are all sorts of fear. I couldn't speak in front of a crowd, but I have had several occasions when I stepped in front of others to face physical danger. I think we see people without much physical fear all the time. Did you watch the Olympics?

Not having a lot of physical fear doesn't make me that special. Maybe it's a lack of imagination on my part. I've been cowardly in other areas many times. I just expect people who take jobs as police or soldiers to have examined themselves about this a little so as not let others down when it's important.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Keep going with the "he could have snuck up on the shooter and ended it". If it wasn't so fucking tragic, it'd be funny.

He could have just as easily shot the wrong guy, been in the wrong building, been shot himself. This is what happens when in chaotic situations. What,eight minutes from start to finish? No, let's just jump in. Peterson may well be a coward. He may well have been given an impossible task at which he could only have failed.
How hard is it to notice whether the guy is armed or not? Fortunately it's not as easy to "shoot the wrong guy," as you think.

No harm no foul if he went in the wrong building -- he would have been trying and he would have been able to eliminate that building.

Yes. Just eight minutes. That's why there isn't time to do nothing at all for fear of failure. He arrived after 4&1/2 minutes. He might have been able to save half the students, if he had shot the killer at the time.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I suppose we do not know whether Scot Peterson's discussions with the Sheriff prior to his retirement are formally recorded anywhere. Normal HR rules would make some record of those discussions necessary, but whether they included any details of the shooting event, or whether those were the subject of another formal interview, remains to be seen.

Truth is, the police had better have some pertinent records of the accounts of officers and others at the scene, i.e. written, signed and witnessed statements, otherwise their conduct is subject to further criticism.
In the UK the guy would be suspended from his post prior to an enquiry, with notes taken and statements taken from everyone who had pertinent evidence from the crime scene. Any law enforcement officer would make a record of anything relevant in their personal notebook in case they were asked to make a statement later. ISTR, cuts the mustard on a bulletin board but not in a court of law.

You wouldn't sack the guy because if his statement turned out to be pretty much correct you'd have an ostrich omelette on your face and be looking at compensation for unfair dismissal. It might turn out that, after an enquiry, the judge would rule that Peterson was guilty of professional negligence but you can't assume that at the outset. If it was my job to sue Peterson within an inch of his life I would question the link between how he thought the shooting was taking place outside the school and called in a SWAT team and got the office to check the CCTV, but it's entirely possible that under questioning it would emerge that this was an evolving understanding of what was going on as the situation developed. I don't know what school campuses in Florida are like, but I remember my own school and someone with an AR could have caused carnage if the good guy, or even guys, with a gun happened not to be in the right place at the right time.

As I keep mentioning, school shootings are sufficiently rare that you cannot have a tactical armed response team on full combat awareness all the time. So either you say that you are happy for kids to get shot up because the right to bear arms outweighs the right not to be massacred during double chemistry or you acknowledge that some king of gun control is necessary. Anyone avoiding this dichotomy is a certifiable fool or a shill for Big Ammo.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I suppose we do not know whether Scot Peterson's discussions with the Sheriff prior to his retirement are formally recorded anywhere. Normal HR rules would make some record of those discussions necessary, but whether they included any details of the shooting event, or whether those were the subject of another formal interview, remains to be seen.

Truth is, the police had better have some pertinent records of the accounts of officers and others at the scene, i.e. written, signed and witnessed statements, otherwise their conduct is subject to further criticism.
The statement from the sheriff's department says:
quote:

Israel added that after seeing the video, hearing witness accounts and getting a statement from Peterson, he suspended the officer without pay pending an internal investigation. Peterson then resigned, he said.
It's interesting that whatever Peterson had reported immediately after the event, had him think he had better give up and quit rather than wait for the internal investigation. Only after lawyering up did he state that he "thought the killer was outside."
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
As I keep mentioning, school shootings are sufficiently rare that you cannot have a tactical armed response team on full combat awareness all the time. So either you say that you are happy for kids to get shot up because the right to bear arms outweighs the right not to be massacred during double chemistry or you acknowledge that some king of gun control is necessary. Anyone avoiding this dichotomy is a certifiable fool or a shill for Big Ammo.
Exactly. I don't know why we're arguing about whether or not this cop did his job correctly (other than Trump said "coward," and then I said, "coward," so now I'm evil) when the big story is that whether the cops do right or not; people, children included, are going to keep dying if we keep allowing all these guns.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
No harm no foul if he went in the wrong building -- he would have been trying and he would have been able to eliminate that building.
And, if the shooter had been outside, and Petersen had information to that effect (and, it appears that was the info he had), he'd have been vilified for going inside a building. So, bullshit to your "no harm no foul".

Besides, even entering a building to eliminate the possibility that the shooter was there would take considerable time. To enter each room, confirm that there is no shooter there ... a minute per room, just for a cursory look. OK, if you have a squad of cops so that you can do all the buildings, with more outside in case the shooter is outside/comes out. One guy? That makes no sense. Better to stay put and await information on where the shooter is - you may not be heading towards where you need to be, but you won't be going the wrong way either.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
As I keep mentioning, school shootings are sufficiently rare that you cannot have a tactical armed response team on full combat awareness all the time. So either you say that you are happy for kids to get shot up because the right to bear arms outweighs the right not to be massacred during double chemistry or you acknowledge that some king of gun control is necessary. Anyone avoiding this dichotomy is a certifiable fool or a shill for Big Ammo.
Exactly. I don't know why we're arguing about whether or not this cop did his job correctly (other than Trump said "coward," and then I said, "coward," so now I'm evil) when the big story is that whether the cops do right or not; people, children included, are going to keep dying if we keep allowing all these guns.
Look, Twiglet, neither of us, pending a proper judicial enquiry, is going to *know* whether the guy was a coward or a decent man out of his depth in a horrendous situation. But we do *know* that allowing people to buy assault rifles with no questions asked are going to cost lots of lives. So focusing on the former may just be playing into the hands of those who are doing "the quickness of the 'and deceives the h'eye" bit, about the latter. So, maybe, hold off the rush to judgement until an inquest has had something definitive to say about the matter?
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Indeed.

Proving the old bastard's potential all-too-standard cowardice doesn't un-murder anybody. Warm blamey feelings of blaming blame might help stupid people make misguided sense of the world, but it doesn't accomplish anything to make it better.

The only thing that matters is that this is an objective stab in the heart of the blithe "guy with a gun" versus "guy with a gun" as the only answer. It's not even close to being the only answer, and it's not a very good one.

[ 28. February 2018, 13:45: Message edited by: RooK ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It's interesting that whatever Peterson had reported immediately after the event, had him think he had better give up and quit rather than wait for the internal investigation. Only after lawyering up did he state that he "thought the killer was outside."
We don't know what he'd already given in his statement to the investigation. The evidence Israel had may well include radio chatter saying the shooter was outside the building, that Petersen had already told him that.

As Callan noted, suspension pending an internal investigation would be normal procedure in most places, and means very little re: guilt or innocence in regard to charges of dereliction of duty or similar. Though, suspension without pay seems very harsh, but again that could be normal for an internal investigation.

As for quitting. Well, I would say it's not particularly strange for someone who has had 14 kids and 3 teachers killed on his watch, even though there was nothing he could have done to change that, to take things badly. Very badly. Maybe he could have gotten over it, but at that moment in time feeling that there was no way he could ever put on a badge again seems to me to be an entirely understandable reaction. Again, irrelevant re: guilt or innocence on any charges that may be brought against him.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A little cheery news to start the day: a nationwide sporting goods store is curtailing gun sales. The CEO was shaken to learn that the Florida shooter buys guns (although not -the- gun) at his store.

And, also from NPR, the governor of Vermont changes his mind. The discovery that a local lad was planning a major slaughter shook him. These are both free clicks.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Vermont has a GOP governor? Say it ain't t so.My wife and I keep Vermont as a possible escape option, short of driving into Canada, if things get too weird in our increasingly red state.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
As I keep mentioning, school shootings are sufficiently rare that you cannot have a tactical armed response team on full combat awareness all the time. So either you say that you are happy for kids to get shot up because the right to bear arms outweighs the right not to be massacred during double chemistry or you acknowledge that some king of gun control is necessary. Anyone avoiding this dichotomy is a certifiable fool or a shill for Big Ammo.
Exactly. I don't know why we're arguing about whether or not this cop did his job correctly (other than Trump said "coward," and then I said, "coward," so now I'm evil) when the big story is that whether the cops do right or not; people, children included, are going to keep dying if we keep allowing all these guns.
Look, Twiglet, neither of us, pending a proper judicial enquiry, is going to *know* whether the guy was a coward or a decent man out of his depth in a horrendous situation. But we do *know* that allowing people to buy assault rifles with no questions asked are going to cost lots of lives. So focusing on the former may just be playing into the hands of those who are doing "the quickness of the 'and deceives the h'eye" bit, about the latter. So, maybe, hold off the rush to judgement until an inquest has had something definitive to say about the matter?
Well. That's what I get for agreeing with you. To think I almost gave your post the
[Overused] smilie.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Vermont has a GOP governor? Say it ain't t so.My wife and I keep Vermont as a possible escape option, short of driving into Canada, if things get too weird in our increasingly red state.
He is a GOP governor, of a very pro-gun state. But he has changed his thinking. I find this very encouraging.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Vermont has a GOP governor? Say it ain't t so.My wife and I keep Vermont as a possible escape option, short of driving into Canada, if things get too weird in our increasingly red state.
Though a GOP governor willing to use his brain rather than just be a puppet of the NRA. So, not all bad.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Exactly. I don't know why we're arguing about whether or not this cop did his job correctly (other than Trump said "coward," and then I said, "coward," so now I'm evil) when the big story is that whether the cops do right or not; people, children included, are going to keep dying if we keep allowing all these guns.
I don't think you're evil, and I don't agree with your take on the school cop quite independently of what Mr. Trump says (although to be fair, if you find yourself arguing on the same side as Donald Trump, it might be a good time to give your position a little extra scrutiny [Biased] ) And we agree - "hardening" schools, and turning them into little mini-jails is not the solution (and sounds like a way to make a generation of thoroughly screwed-up kids if you ask me). If you have a society with these kinds of weapons, you're going to have some mass killings. Just like having motor vehicles means we have traffic accidents.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Indeed.

Proving the old bastard's potential all-too-standard cowardice doesn't un-murder anybody. Warm blamey feelings of blaming blame might help stupid people make misguided sense of the world, but it doesn't accomplish anything to make it better.

I've read two articles today by right wing columnists who say what we need is not gun control but more security at the schools. If some committee decides (a few years from now, when it wont be reported) that Paterson did lose his nerve and, as Alan would have him do, stayed put until all the firing was over and the shooter gone -- then that might put a spoke in the, "all we need is security guards," argument.

As for warm blamey feelings -- if those parents whose children were slaughtered, get a little of their anger relieved by thinking about Mr. "I think I'll just wait here for more information," then I don't fault them one bit -- or call them stupid.

Oh wait...
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The laws governing motor vehicles are designed for the safety of everyone concerned. American gun laws? Not so much.
ETA: vehicles are necessary to our lives. Guns, not so much.

[ 28. February 2018, 14:37: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Breaking News: Dick's Sporting Goods, one of the U.S.'s largest sports retailers, will stop selling military-style rifles and require gun buyers to be 21.
[Smile]

I just got this from the New York Times, so I'm not posting the link (pay wall), but I'm sure Google will have lots of links.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
How hard is it to notice whether the guy is armed or not? Fortunately it's not as easy to "shoot the wrong guy," as you think.
Tell that to a black guy, because those dudes clearly need to chill out with their "Black Lives Matter" shtick.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, suspension without pay seems very harsh, but again that could be normal for an internal investigation.
I thought that as well. But then I remembered it was in America, where most people don't even get paid maternity leave, much less paid suspensions.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
How hard is it to notice whether the guy is armed or not? Fortunately it's not as easy to "shoot the wrong guy," as you think.
Tell that to a black guy, because those dudes clearly need to chill out with their "Black Lives Matter" shtick.
Indeed. For something that's not easy to do, the police sure are good at doing it.

Remember that one last year when they turned up to a call and immediately shot the woman who'd called them in the first place? Yeah, that proves that it's really easy to tell whether someone's a threat or not. [Roll Eyes]

[ 28. February 2018, 15:07: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A little cheery news to start the day: a nationwide sporting goods store is curtailing gun sales. The CEO was shaken to learn that the Florida shooter buys guns (although not -the- gun) at his store.

And, also from NPR, the governor of Vermont changes his mind. The discovery that a local lad was planning a major slaughter shook him. These are both free clicks.
Upside: two individuals change minds . . .
Downside: . . . because something happens close to home?

Well, if that's what it takes, we only have to wait until every state has a mass school shooting, and every arms-seller is shocked to learn they've supplied a mass shooter with weapons.
[Disappointed]
FFS, where do these morons THINK PEOPLE GET THESE WEAPONS?

[ 28. February 2018, 15:08: Message edited by: Ohher ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The laws governing motor vehicles are designed for the safety of everyone concerned. American gun laws? Not so much.
ETA: vehicles are necessary to our lives. Guns, not so much.
I'm not disputing that. But both things come with natural consequences - if you have a society where everyone drives round in cars, you will have road accidents. If you have a society where everyone runs round with guns, you will have shootings.

A sensible political goal is to find the appropriate balance between the usefulness of the thing and the safety aspects (and especially the safety of other people. I'm less concerned about idiots killing or maiming themselves than I am about them taking out other people.) Basically, a cost-benefit analysis.

The laws around motor vehicle use are a fair approximation of that. I don't think they're perfect, but given current technology, they're a reasonable attempt.

Gun laws? We agree.

If a second amendment absolutist wants to make the claim that having guns is so fundamental that the benefits outweigh the costs, then OK. I won't agree with his measure of benefit, but you've got to accept the cost. The thing that drives me crazy are the people that pretend that the costs don't exist.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Breaking News: Dick's Sporting Goods, one of the U.S.'s largest sports retailers, will stop selling military-style rifles and require gun buyers to be 21.
[Smile]

I just got this from the New York Times, so I'm not posting the link (pay wall), but I'm
sure Google will have lots of links.
Someone mentioned this upthread as well. I'm not a sports person, but I'm determined to find something-- a warwe bottle or travel mug perhaps-- to purchase at my local Dicks this weekend. The full statement was beautiful.

(Given the number of non-sporty lefties apt to be flooding the stores this weekend, perhaps they can print some t shirts with a new slogan "stand with Dick's and not the dick". Give a % of the profits to Everytown-- anti gun group founded by Sandy Hook parents-- and you've got a winner)

[ 28. February 2018, 15:30: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Fucking guns.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0