Yet another mass shooting in America

First topic message reminder :

The USA, home of the free and land of the deranged mass shooter.

No doubt usual vigils, well meaning words, heart felt condolences etc given out but ultimately naff all be done to alleviate the scourge of gun crime.
What's the NRA line, only way to deal with this is to arm more people?

Yep that's really working out fine and dandy....

I don't think America is going to change its second amendment in the same way it is not going to change its foreign policies.

No name Bertie wrote:I don't think America is going to change its second amendment in the same way it is not going to change its foreign policies.

Can't think of many wars apart from Vietnam...Brits haven't supported the US in usually for a crumb....Certainly Blair grovelling for some oil rights helped with the PR over Iraq...

As for Vietnam....LBJ wrote that he told Harold Wilson to F*** Off everytime he tried to arrange a visit during that war....."If that Brit thinks he can come here when it gets hot back home for him he can ****....****....****"

Great Man was Lyndon....The right man at the wrong time but JFK couldn't get the Civil rights act....Medicaid and Educational advances through like LBJ did.

Vietnam cost us a powerhouse President.

Samo wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Galted wrote:

mountain man wrote:Come on. Anyone clinging to the 2nd Amendment, something written hundreds of years ago and which has zero relevance to today is someone refusing to see sense.

Unfortunately most of them cling to the Bible as well, compared to that the second amendment is a state of the art concept.

Having "Faith" is a bad thing is it ??....Perhaps if this Country had more faith it wouldn't be at the bottom of the G7.

Maybe if you're nice the US will give you another handout...

Nothing wrong with having faith.  Everything wrong with using your faith to try and dictate how other people live their lives.

You gotta have faith-ah-faith-ah-faith-ahhhh.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Samo wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Galted wrote:

mountain man wrote:Come on. Anyone clinging to the 2nd Amendment, something written hundreds of years ago and which has zero relevance to today is someone refusing to see sense.

Unfortunately most of them cling to the Bible as well, compared to that the second amendment is a state of the art concept.

Having "Faith" is a bad thing is it ??....Perhaps if this Country had more faith it wouldn't be at the bottom of the G7.

Maybe if you're nice the US will give you another handout...

Nothing wrong with having faith.  Everything wrong with using your faith to try and dictate how other people live their lives.

You gotta have faith-ah-faith-ah-faith-ahhhh.

I guess it would be nice if I could touch your body.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Interestingly, in the US, gun owners are more likely to live in rural areas. Yet these are supposedly the safest areas. Obviously some rural people require guns for protecting livestock from predators etc. but it seems the people living most in fear (and hence buying guns for protection) are those least at risk.
Fear seems to be a big part of the American psyche.
Fear of being attacked, fear of people different than yourself, fear of God etc.

Could owning a gun be a factor for that lower crime? Deterrence and all that.

Are the people who live in those areas more disposed to commit crimes, and thus a deterrent is needed to prevent them committing them?

Well if that's the case, it would seem guns are absolutely necessary.

No name Bertie wrote:I don't think America is going to change its second amendment in the same way it is not going to change its foreign policies.

Trump tried to change it, only modern president to reduce the amount of foreign wars the US got involved in, and not start any new ones.

Galted wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Samo wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Galted wrote:

mountain man wrote:Come on. Anyone clinging to the 2nd Amendment, something written hundreds of years ago and which has zero relevance to today is someone refusing to see sense.

Unfortunately most of them cling to the Bible as well, compared to that the second amendment is a state of the art concept.

Having "Faith" is a bad thing is it ??....Perhaps if this Country had more faith it wouldn't be at the bottom of the G7.

Maybe if you're nice the US will give you another handout...

Nothing wrong with having faith.  Everything wrong with using your faith to try and dictate how other people live their lives.

You gotta have faith-ah-faith-ah-faith-ahhhh.

I guess it would be nice if I could touch your body.

Racist.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:I don't think America is going to change its second amendment in the same way it is not going to change its foreign policies.

Can't think of many wars apart from Vietnam...Brits haven't supported the US in usually for a crumb....Certainly Blair grovelling for some oil rights helped with the PR over Iraq...

As for Vietnam....LBJ wrote that he told Harold Wilson to F*** Off everytime he tried to arrange a visit during that war....."If that Brit thinks he can come here when it gets hot back home for him he can ****....****....****"

Great Man was Lyndon....The right man at the wrong time but JFK couldn't get the Civil rights act....Medicaid and Educational advances through like LBJ did.

Vietnam cost us a powerhouse President.

Biggest mistake Blair did was supporting that buffoon Bush Jnr over Iraq. What an utter farcical waste of life that war was.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Galted wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Samo wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Galted wrote:

mountain man wrote:Come on. Anyone clinging to the 2nd Amendment, something written hundreds of years ago and which has zero relevance to today is someone refusing to see sense.

Unfortunately most of them cling to the Bible as well, compared to that the second amendment is a state of the art concept.

Having "Faith" is a bad thing is it ??....Perhaps if this Country had more faith it wouldn't be at the bottom of the G7.

Maybe if you're nice the US will give you another handout...

Nothing wrong with having faith.  Everything wrong with using your faith to try and dictate how other people live their lives.

You gotta have faith-ah-faith-ah-faith-ahhhh.

I guess it would be nice if I could touch your body.

Racist.

Don't tie me down with your lover boy rules

mountain man wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:I don't think America is going to change its second amendment in the same way it is not going to change its foreign policies.

Can't think of many wars apart from Vietnam...Brits haven't supported the US in usually for a crumb....Certainly Blair grovelling for some oil rights helped with the PR over Iraq...

As for Vietnam....LBJ wrote that he told Harold Wilson to F*** Off everytime he tried to arrange a visit during that war....."If that Brit thinks he can come here when it gets hot back home for him he can ****....****....****"

Great Man was Lyndon....The right man at the wrong time but JFK couldn't get the Civil rights act....Medicaid and Educational advances through like LBJ did.

Vietnam cost us a powerhouse President.

Biggest mistake Blair did was supporting that buffoon Bush Jnr over Iraq. What an utter farcical waste of life that war was.

Dick Cheney made a lot of money out of it.......

And another.

Someone should probably do something about it.

A vigil is what's needed.

superflyweight wrote:Someone should probably do something about it.  

Meh, probably too late now, so might as well just crack on with the status quo, it seems too hard to change it.

rIck_dAgless wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Someone should probably do something about it.  

Meh, probably too late now, so might as well just crack on with the status quo, it seems too hard to change it.

Is that what you're proposing?

Galted wrote:A vigil is what's needed.

Don't forget the prayers, too .

JuliusHMarx wrote:

rIck_dAgless wrote:...status quo...

...what you're proposing?

Don't know why I bother.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

rIck_dAgless wrote:...status quo...

...what you're proposing?

Don't know why I bother.

Move on, Julius, don't let it hold you back.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Galted wrote:A vigil is what's needed.

Don't forget the prayers, too .

Guns. Lots of guns.

Looking at gun control as a whole and not the automatic rifle legislation that should be a no brainer to anyone with any sense......Worth pointing out that...

The Center of Disease control were asked to produce a report for Obama in 2012 and they concluded that as many as 3 million crimes a year are prevented by guns....

Worth looking at relevant reports that suggest

* 400,000 life threatening crimes are prevented..

*60% of felons admitted they avoided committing crimes when they believed the victim could be armed..

It's the other side of the fence of the argument that people don't see..

Myself I'm anti guns but I can view these things objectively..

Someone not getting mugged for their handbag/wallet because they might be carrying a gun vs kids being slaughtered at school by a nut-job with a semi-automatic rifle.

'Objectively', it's a real head-scratcher and I'm glad I don't have to pick a side. Thoughts and prayers with those who have to contend with such dilemmas in their professional lives.

superflyweight wrote:Someone not getting mugged for their handbag/wallet because they might be carrying a gun vs kids being slaughtered at school by a nut-job with a semi-automatic rifle.  

'Objectively', it's a real head-scratcher and I'm glad I don't have to pick a side. Thoughts and prayers with those who have to contend with such dilemmas in their professional lives.  

You want to try writing something without resorting to sly pops all the time (Maybe It's a lawyer thing).....It can be very unbecoming.

I did point out that I'm anti-gun......In your rush to get sarcastic you may have overlooked that.....and being the nice guy that I am....I'm willing to forgive you for it..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Someone not getting mugged for their handbag/wallet because they might be carrying a gun vs kids being slaughtered at school by a nut-job with a semi-automatic rifle.  

'Objectively', it's a real head-scratcher and I'm glad I don't have to pick a side. Thoughts and prayers with those who have to contend with such dilemmas in their professional lives.  

You want to try writing something without resorting to sly pops all the time (Maybe It's a lawyer thing).....It can be very unbecoming.

I did point out that I'm anti-gun......In your rush to get sarcastic you may have overlooked that.....and being the nice guy that I am....I'm willing to forgive you for it..

I know that you're anti-guns, T-Bone and the findings from that report are actually interesting, but only to the extent that they reinforce the opinion that Americans are obsessed with guns in way which is borderline psychotic. Plenty of people in the UK are the victim of violent crimes, but I'm fairly certain that arming the general population would create a bigger problem.

superflyweight wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Someone not getting mugged for their handbag/wallet because they might be carrying a gun vs kids being slaughtered at school by a nut-job with a semi-automatic rifle.  

'Objectively', it's a real head-scratcher and I'm glad I don't have to pick a side. Thoughts and prayers with those who have to contend with such dilemmas in their professional lives.  

You want to try writing something without resorting to sly pops all the time (Maybe It's a lawyer thing).....It can be very unbecoming.

I did point out that I'm anti-gun......In your rush to get sarcastic you may have overlooked that.....and being the nice guy that I am....I'm willing to forgive you for it..

I know that you're anti-guns, T-Bone and the findings from that report are actually interesting, but only to the extent that they reinforce the opinion that Americans are obsessed with guns in way which is borderline psychotic.  Plenty of people in the UK are the victim of violent crimes, but I'm fairly certain that arming the general population would create a bigger problem.  

I'd shoot the bloody neighbour opposite us who sings and dances on her balcony at about 7am for starters.

The only valid argument at this moment in time for gun ownership is that the problem is so prevalent that reversing the situation is nigh on impossible.

It worked in the UK and Oz after the terrible mass shooting incidents here because the public went "f**k that" and willingly handed in their arms.

In the US folk seem to double down using reports such as the above to justify it, added to the fact that the shootings have become so commonplace that folk are becoming almost desensitised at a national level, so the "f**k that" moment has sailed as a way of a short, sharp, shock solution and something else needs to take its place.

rIck_dAgless wrote:The only valid argument at this moment in time for gun ownership is that the problem is so prevalent that reversing the situation is nigh on impossible.

It worked in the UK and Oz after the terrible mass shooting incidents here because the public went "f**k that" and willingly handed in their arms.

In the US folk seem to double down using reports such as the above to justify it, added to the fact that the shootings have become so commonplace that folk are becoming almost desensitised at a national level, so the "f**k that" moment has sailed as a way of a short, sharp, shock solution and something else needs to take its place.

And the changes in the Law after Dunblane led to the handing in of 160000 hand guns, so perhaps 100000 people were affected. Currently about 500K people in the UK legally own shotguns or other firearms, with about 2 million weapons in circulation.

Now the US has about 330 million people, and I believe about 1/3 are gun owners, so there are over 100 million people with guns. And the number of guns is somewhere around 500 million. And a lot of those people strongly believe in their right to own guns in an unencumbered way (no licensing system etc). Basically, a signifincat gun ban or restriction would struggle with the 'you can't get there from here' problem.

The CDC report mentioned earlier is widely doubted, because it was based on a questionaire sent to gun owners, who self-reported their use of weapons to prevent crimes. There's a lot of doubt that many told the truth rather than embellished, and the numbers do not tally with anything the law enforcement agencies could come up with.

Suspect there might be some changes if the kids of the rich, primarily white, Senators, tech billionaires etc were subject to a massacre in their rich, Ivy League schools/colleges etc.

Probably not, though as too many would probably say it was worth it to preserve the Second...

I'm surprised (or, maybe, I shouldn't be) there isn't a State where the majority opinion is for significant additional legislation, they cite Truss's 10th Amendment and just legislate.

navyblueshorts wrote:Suspect there might be some changes if the kids of the rich, primarily white, Senators, tech billionaires etc were subject to a massacre in their rich, Ivy League schools/colleges etc.

Probably not, though as too many would probably say it was worth it to preserve the Second...

I'm surprised (or, maybe, I shouldn't be) there isn't a State where the majority opinion is for significant additional legislation, they cite Truss's 10th Amendment and just legislate.

Nitpicking I know but Ivy leaguers are mostly Democrat anyway..........lots of old stories and new ones (ie Ted Cruz) of alienation while studying at the the golden gates and being a Republican....

But I do see your point......nothing hits harder than at home.

Not a mass shooting but yet another senseless gun death that was totally avoidable if the murderer hadn't had access to a gun.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67694134

W.T.F. ???

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67825635

navyblueshorts wrote:W.T.F. ???

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67825635

Indeed. The mind boggles . The 15 year old "drew his own gun " ?

alfie wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:W.T.F. ???

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67825635

Indeed. The mind boggles . The 15 year old "drew his own gun "  ?  

If only the baby had a gun, it could have defended itself.