President Is “Angry,” Wants “Shift” in Attitude Toward Guns

[Jeff]

Yes we all know by now how this idiot we call President tried to turn a tragedy into a political gain for himself. But the problem is, if he had gotten everything he wanted to enforce about guns, ban on assault rifles, background checks done differently,Mag size limit, none of the changes he wanted would of stopped what happened in Charleston. This guy can't really be that stupid, no he isn't, personally I believe it is just like the flag deal in SC, we will settle ( for now ) with the flag being taken off of the State House, but in the long run we want a ban all together of the flag, in fact at the next convenient tragedy we will push it. Yes Obama let the cat out of the bag, we know none of what he wanted would of changed a thing in Charleston, unless of course ( as many have said ) his ultimate goal is 100% no guns, and then this idiot in Charleston would of still done the same things, cause get this, Roof didn't play by the rules in the first place. :rolleyes:


Political commentators on the Left noted a significant change in how President Obama is making his case for more gun control. The change has been perceptible to Brett Logiurato (http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-on-charleston-shooting-gun-control-2015-6) atBusiness Insider, Sam Stein (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/18/obama-gun-violence-_n_7615838.html?1434659341) at Huffington Post, and Adam Chandler (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/president-obamas-hard-rhetorical-shift-on-gun-control/396335/) at the Atlantic.
Just hours after the horrific massacre in Charleston, President Obama expressed his sorrow:
To say that our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families and their community doesn’t say enough to convey the heartache and the sadness and the anger that we feel.




The fact that none of the gun restrictions Obama wants to impose on America would have prevented the massacre doesn’t matter. Background checks on private transactions, bans on assault rifles, limits on magazine size — none of these would have kept Dylann Roof from committing murder. He received the gun he allegedly used in the assault as a gift from his father, an exception granted under the laws of South Carolina.


http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=4301673%3ATopic%3A3746507&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic

[Noir]

The question is - Why does this keep happening, again and again in America, and not in the UK, or France, or Germany etc?

[jimnyc]

The question is - Why does this keep happening, again and again in America, and not in the UK, or France, or Germany etc?

None of those places have the same freedoms of the USA, and the ability to defend ones self from foreign invaders, or even within, or from a government taking over. Many places have the government dictating rights 100%. We have a constitution here which grants us more rights than any other country in the world, and more freedoms than any country in the world. Sometimes there are prices to pay for freedom, and sickos and nutsos occasionally use those freedoms for evil. I would rather that, than giving my rights back to the government and unable to protect myself.

[Noir]

None of those places have the same freedoms of the USA, and the ability to defend ones self from foreign invaders, or even within, or from a government taking over. Many places have the government dictating rights 100%. We have a constitution here which grants us more rights than any other country in the world, and more freedoms than any country in the world. Sometimes there are prices to pay for freedom, and sickos and nutsos occasionally use those freedoms for evil. I would rather that, than giving my rights back to the government and unable to protect myself.

I would read from this that you think the freedom of gun ownership is the the reason for so many mass shootings, but its a price you're happy to pay.
Is that a fair statement?

[Olivia]

The person who decides to take away the second amendment better be prepared to guarantee my safety. Otherwise " my.attitude" will be unchanged. And I could care less that the dope is angry.

[Rat]

I don't understand the debate over magazine limits. The Charleston church shooter was able to reload five times. Sort of negates the argument for it.

[jimnyc]

I would read from this that you think the freedom of gun ownership is the the reason for so many mass shootings, but its a price you're happy to pay.
Is that a fair statement?

From reading your posts, I read that you don't mind being ruled by government, having rights stripped, controlled, and told what you can and cannot own. You give up rights in the hopes of preventing gun deaths. Is that a fair statement?

2 different worlds. Over here in the USA, we would fight and die for our rights, liberties and freedoms. I'm sorry you just buckle under so easily. :)

[Noir]

From reading your posts, I read that you don't mind being ruled by government, having rights stripped, controlled, and told what you can and cannot own. You give up rights in the hopes of preventing gun deaths. Is that a fair statement?

2 different worlds. Over here in the USA, we would fight and die for our rights, liberties and freedoms. I'm sorry you just buckle under so easily. :)

Your rights are controlled, how exactly would you plan to die 'fighting for the right' of the 2nd amendment if the government removed said right?

[jimnyc]

Your rights are controlled, how exactly would you plan to die 'fighting for the right' of the 2nd amendment if the government removed said right?

Ever heard the phrase "from my cold dead hands". Look it up if not.

[Max R.]

The question is - Why does this keep happening, again and again in America, and not in the UK, or France, or Germany etc?First, it's a question of numbers:

Population of Germany is 80+ million, France 66+ million, UK 64+ million. Total: 210+ million

Population US: 318+ million. About a third larger than all those countries combined.

Second, it's a matter of information overload. If a university hosts a seminar on date rape and, in the month following the seminar the rate of date rapes reported doubles, does this mean the seminar caused more date rapes? Or is the answer more about awareness and reporting of problems previously unreported?

A few years ago while watching the morning news on CNN I saw a report where 30 Russian villagers had drowned in a Siberian spring flood. While that was tragic, I had to think, out of a world of 7 Billion human beings, that was the bad news of the day? Thirty Siberians drowned? Considering all the other possibilities, it was actually a pretty good f**king day even if it sucked to be one of those Russians.

Third, and most important IMHO, the main factor in these tragedies isn't a firearm, but the mental illness of the person committing the atrocity. As happened in Austria recently, even without a gun, a mentally ill person can kill a bunch of people simply by driving a car at high speed into a crowd and then stabbing anyone close by with a knife. We can't put bubblewrap and helmets on everyone and expect to protect them from injury for their entire lives, but we can at least address both the issue of mental illness and our society's ability to give these people help.

[Noir]

Ever heard the phrase "from my cold dead hands". Look it up if not.

So when a policeman tries to take you're illegal firearm are you going to resist them?

[revelarts]

I would read from this that you think the freedom of gun ownership is the the reason for so many mass shootings, but its a price you're happy to pay.
Is that a fair statement?

"happy" isn't the right choice of words.

[jimnyc]

So when a policeman tries to take you're illegal firearm are you going to resist them?

Read into it whatever you like, I don't need to tell you specific plans, or what I would do in a specific situation. Let's just say that no weapon I own will ever be taken away from me. That's a fact.

[Noir]

First, it's a question of numbers:

Population of Germany is 80+ million, France 66+ million, UK 64+ million. Total: 210+ million

Population US: 318+ million. About a third larger than all those countries combined.

Second, it's a matter of information overload. If a university hosts a seminar on date rape and, in the month following the seminar the rate of date rapes reported doubles, does this mean the seminar caused more date rapes? Or is the answer more about awareness and reporting of problems previously unreported?

A few years ago while watching the morning news on CNN I saw a report where 30 Russian villagers had drowned in a Siberian spring flood. While that was tragic, I had to think, out of a world of 7 Billion human beings, that was the bad news of the day? Thirty Siberians drowned? Considering all the other possibilities, it was actually a pretty good f**king day even if it sucked to be one of those Russians.

Third, and most important IMHO, the main factor in these tragedies isn't a firearm, but the mental illness of the person committing the atrocity. As happened in Austria recently, even without a gun, a mentally ill person can kill a bunch of people simply by driving a car at high speed into a crowd and then stabbing anyone close by with a knife. We can't put bubblewrap and helmets on everyone and expect to protect them from injury for their entire lives, but we can at least address both the issue of mental illness and our society's ability to give these people help.

First - and per population (taking the difference into account) how many mass shootings have occurred in European countries over the past 20 years as oppose to the states?

Second - Are you implying that mass shootings are happening in European countries but we just aren't hearing about them?

Third - Would you find it comforting to know that a mentally ill person would have a much harder time finding a gun?

[Max R.]

So when a policeman tries to take you're illegal firearm are you going to resist them?
http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Webdesign_Elements/Arrows/set_5_up.gif More evidence that the anti-gun Left isn't just for "common sense" gun laws, but actually seeks to ban all firearms and repeal the Second Amendment.

@Noir, why do you think the Founders included the Second Amendment in our Constitution?

[Noir]

Read into it whatever you like, I don't need to tell you specific plans, or what I would do in a specific situation. Let's just say that no weapon I own will ever be taken away from me. That's a fact.

Careful, you're starting to sound like one of those thugs the American police are all too willing to kill.

[Max R.]

First - and per population (taking the difference into account) how many mass shootings have occurred in European countries over the past 20 years as oppose to the states?

Second - Are you implying that mass shootings are happening in European countries but we just aren't hearing about them?

Third - Would you find it comforting to know that a mentally ill person would have a much harder time finding a gun?
I give up. How many? Don't forget to include all mass murders since Euros are very anti-gun. If you want to purposely skew the numbers, then also ask how many mass murder were committed by English-speaking white males.

I'm implying that news we don't hear about doesn't mean those things never happened.

My point is that we need to keep criminals and mentally ill people from accessing any kind of weapon. Further, we need to imprison the criminals and treat the mentally ill. Why do you seek to punish the innocent by banning things just because of what someone might do? Using your logic, we can save 30,000+ lives per year by banning cars and making riding buses mandatory. We don't have to change the Constitution either.

[jimnyc]

Careful, you're starting to sound like one of those thugs the American police are all too willing to kill.

And now you sound like an idiot. Again.

[Max R.]

And now you sound like an idiot. Again.
Judging by his picture, I think he's simply "young". Not a crime and we've all been there. For some like me, over 40 years ago.

[Noir]

I give up. How many? Don't forget to include all mass murders since Euros are very anti-gun. If you want to purposely skew the numbers, then also ask how many mass murder were committed by English-speaking white males.

:laugh:
But we're always told (even on this very forum) that no guns for 'law abiding citizens' means the criminals will run amuck, are you saying that European criminals are 'very anti-gun' and so doesn't reflect in mass murder statistics?


I'm implying that news we don't hear about doesn't mean those things never happened.

So mass muderers are taking place in Euroupe, and no one, not even social media, is reporting on them. That certainly seems more reasonable than no mass murders are taking place, therefore none are being reported.


My point is that we need to keep criminals and mentally ill people from accessing any kind of weapon. Further, we need to imprison the criminals and treat the mentally ill. Why do you seek to punish the innocent by banning things just because of what someone might do? Using your logic, we can save 30,000+ lives per year by banning cars and making riding buses mandatory. We don't have to change the Constitution either.

America keeps plenty enough of its citizens in jail, don't you think? Far far more (per population) than the likes of the UK, but I'm sure imprisioning some more will stop the shootings.

Do you agree that it is easier for a mentally ill person to get their hands on a gun in the U.S. than it is the UK?

[Max R.]

:laugh:
But we're always told (even on this very forum) that no guns for 'law abiding citizens' means the criminals will run amuck, are you saying that European criminals are 'very anti-gun' and so doesn't reflect in mass murder statistics?



So mass muderers are taking place in Euroupe, and no one, not even social media, is reporting on them. That certainly seems more reasonable than no mass murders are taking place, therefore none are being reported.



America keeps plenty enough of its citizens in jail, don't you think? Far far more (per population) than the likes of the UK, but I'm sure imprisioning some more will stop the shootings.

Do you agree that it is easier for a mentally ill person to get their hands on a gun in the U.S. than it is the UK?

The premise, a valid one, is "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". That proved true in Charleston, didn't it?

Do you really think no mass murders are committed in Europe?

Most of those are drug crimes and I favor legalizing drugs and assisted suicide. If you want to poison yourself with heroin, I support your right to die choking on your own vomit. Just don't try to tell me how to live.

[jimnyc]

Judging by his picture, I think he's simply "young". Not a crime and we've all been there. For some like me, over 40 years ago.

Oh, I know, and he is. Never said it was a crime, but he's still an idiot at times with comments to goad you like that.

[Noir]

The premise, a valid one, is "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". That proved true in Charleston, didn't it?

...and in Europe those outlaws tend to not use those guns, yeah?


Do you really think no mass murders are committed in Europe?

Mass murderes have been committed, but to nowhere near the frequency as happens in the states.


Most of those are drug crimes and I favor legalizing drugs and assisted suicide. If you want to poison yourself with heroin, I support your right to die choking on your own vomit. Just don't try to tell me how to live.

Do you agree that it is easier for a mentally ill person to get their hands on a gun in the U.S. than it is the UK?

[Max R.]

...and in Europe those outlaws tend to not use those guns, yeah?



Mass murderes have been committed, but to nowhere near the frequency as happens in the states.



Do you agree that it is easier for a mentally ill person to get their hands on a gun in the U.S. than it is the UK?
Considering Euros are the epitome of Nanny Staters and originators of Fascism and Communism, it's no wonder they ban guns.
The US is "exceptional" in that we tossed out our King and forged a new type of government.

Prove your premise, kiddo.

Yes. Your solution is to ban guns. My solution is to treat the mentally ill. Which solution do you think is better for the individual who is mentally ill?

[Max R.]

Oh, I know, and he is. Never said it was a crime, but he's still an idiot at times with comments to goad you like that.
IMHO, better to use wisdom to outwit the ignorant than to be goaded by a kid.

[Noir]

Considering Euros are the epitome of Nanny Staters and originators of Fascism and Communism, it's no wonder they ban guns.
The US is "exceptional" in that we tossed out our King and forged a new type of government.

The US is exceptional in how many mass shootings occour, I'll grant that much.


Prove your premise, kiddo.

Prove the frequency of mass murderes is greater in the US?
Okay.
Lets set the bar at 5+ deaths, and since I only want to spend 2 mins making this post I'll just include school shootings from 2005 onwards.
I count eight.

In the history of the UK I can only find one instance of any school shooting, that of Dunblane in 1996.

But please, do quote your own numbers and prove to me that such events are not more frequent in the UK.


Yes. Your solution is to ban guns. My solution is to treat the mentally ill. Which solution do you think is better for the individual who is mentally ill?

...or ban guns AND help treat the mentally ill.

also Do you agree that it is easier for a mentally ill person to get their hands on a gun in the U.S. than it is the UK? (Not a question you like apparently.)

[Drummond]

From reading your posts, I read that you don't mind being ruled by government, having rights stripped, controlled, and told what you can and cannot own. You give up rights in the hopes of preventing gun deaths. Is that a fair statement?

2 different worlds. Over here in the USA, we would fight and die for our rights, liberties and freedoms. I'm sorry you just buckle under so easily. :):clap::clap::clap::clap:

Beautifully put !!!

If I may ... the sheer longevity of 'adjustment' is a key consideration. What Noir and I experience on a day-to-day level, in terms of Society's values and tolerances, has come about only after generations have been taught to see things a particular way.

America has been getting its own taste of Leftieism, and even then, in watered-down form, for a significantly shorter period. Remember also that you not only have your Constitution as a simple fact of life, but that a fundamental part of what you value comes out of an acute awareness of what it is, and what it does. The UK, by total contrast, only has 'rule of law', and NO equivalent Constitution.

Noir probably doesn't fully grasp, even at concept-level, the importance of what you're discussing with him. He's anchored by conditioning, the basis for which cannot 'take' in quite the same way in America.

[revelarts]

Though it seems like at least one gun-related death is in the news every day, a study published by Pew Research Center in May 2013 found that the national rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes have actually decreased since the mid-1990s — a surprising statistic, considering 56 percent of Americans think gun crime is higher now than it was 20 years ago.

In their analysis of violent gun crimes throughout the past 50 years, Pew researchers found that gun rates rose in the 1960s, further surged in the 1970s, and peaked in the 1980s and early 1990s. Then, rates started declining.

When the study was conducted last year, the rate of firearm homicides was down 49 percent from 1993, putting the rate of gun-related crimes in the United States closer to levels last seen in the 1960s.

American Police Continue To MIlitarize Despite Record Low Crime Rates (http://www.mintpressnews.com/americans-police-continue-to-militarize-despite-record-low-crime-rates/192029/)


not what you'd think if you're just listening to Obama or FOX or CNN
"The number of homicides fell sharply in several of the nation's largest cities in 2013, with both New York and Chicago dropping to levels not seen since the 1960s."

[aboutime]

The question is - Why does this keep happening, again and again in America, and not in the UK, or France, or Germany etc?


Unlike you, and where you live. We in the U.S.A. actually have a Constitution, For the people, and by the people. You, on the other hand have total government control over everything you do in life. Which is WHAT WE THE PEOPLE are fighting daily here.

We do not want a large government that controls everything we do in life. That seems to be a pleasing thing for you, as it relieves you of any personal responsibility to make any decisions on your own; allowing government to TELL YOU what you can say, do, where you can work, your hours, and how much you will work before Govt tells you WHEN to go on vacation.

And I haven't even begun talking about your RAINBOW flag, or your future of finding a life partner by NOT LOOKING HIM IN THE FACE when you have sex.
So...you should just learn more History young man.

[revelarts]

"The national homicide rate for 2011 was 4.8 per 100,000 citizens — less than half of what it was in the early years of the Great Depression, when it peaked before falling precipitously before World War II. The peak in modern times of 10.2 was in 1980, as recorded by national criminal statistics.


“We’re at as low a place as we’ve been in the past 100 years,” says Randolph Roth (http://history.osu.edu/directory/Roth5), professor of history at Ohio State University and author of this year’s “American Homicide,” (http://www.amazon.com/American-Homicide-Randolph-Roth/dp/0674064119/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355946297&sr=8-1&keywords=american+homicide) a landmark study of the history of killing in the United States. “The rate oscillates between about 5 and 9 [per 100,000], sometimes a little higher or lower, and we’re right at the bottom end of that oscillation.”
....

...And, no matter what your favorite politician says about gun control or the lack of it, the homicide rate has been near stagnant or falling for 21 consecutive years — even as images of violence have proliferated, even as the stock market has soared and crashed, as political upheavals have come and gone, as drugs have waxed and waned, even as the number of high-profile mass killings like the one in Newtown has risen.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/mass-killings-up-homicide-rate-down/2012/12/19/3a87b058-4a11-11e2-820e-17eefac2f939_story.html

[Drummond]

The US is exceptional in how many mass shootings occour, I'll grant that much.



Prove the frequency of mass murderes is greater in the US?
Okay.
Lets set the bar at 5+ deaths, and since I only want to spend 2 mins making this post I'll just include school shootings from 2005 onwards.
I count eight.

In the history of the UK I can only find one instance of any school shooting, that of Dunblane in 1996.

But please, do quote your own numbers and prove to me that such events are not more frequent in the UK.



...or ban guns AND help treat the mentally ill.

also Do you agree that it is easier for a mentally ill person to get their hands on a gun in the U.S. than it is the UK? (Not a question you like apparently.)

A couple of points, Noir - and by the way, I think that to a degree you're being disingenuous.

First point: the frequency of shootings is bound to be greater in a Society where the availability of guns is itself greater. I take that point .. for what it's worth.

BUT ... what IS it worth ?

Guns are one form of weapon. There are others. For example, knife crime in the UK ... do you suggest that it doesn't happen, that knife-wielding gangs are unknown in Britain ?

What about beheadings ?? Drummer Lee Rigby - and what happened to him, in south London ... AND .. . the fact that, because gun-carrying is so rare in Britain, nobody could usefully do anything about that incident as it was unfolding.

Another beheading case occurred in the autumn of 2014, in north London .. Edmonton, N9 area, in Nightingale Road, a street I happen to know well, having once lived within a mile of it !! A maniac invaded back gardens, carrying a machete, and successfully beheaded an elderly lady. Tell me .. could anyone, a neighbour, maybe, have STOPPED him, through the use of a gun ??

How about the England riots, of 2011 ? Started in Tottenham .. it spread to nearby Enfield 24 hours later, then to major English cities over the week that followed. How many of those rioters were stopped in their tracks, say, by shopkeepers, protecting their properties from looting or arson ?? Would the carpet store in Lordship Lane, Tottenham, never been burned to the ground, the upstairs flat where a family was living, NOT been gutted by fire, if just ONE person could've warded off attackers by using a gun ??

Noir, you lament the relative ease of gun ownership in the US. But how much of what I've described could've been prevented, if ONLY attackers could have been stopped by people armed with guns who used them to protect life and property ?

And as I've suggested, you're being a little disingenuous in any case. Not actually school shootings, maybe ... but the UK has had its share of nutters opening up with guns, even despite the stringency of our laws. I shall cite two examples, of this, which 'strangely', you somehow 'failed to find' ..... (!!) ...

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


The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre, the 1989 Monkseaton shootings, and the 1996 Dunblane school massacre, it is one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in British history.

The series of attacks began in mid-morning in Lamplugh and moved to Frizington, Whitehaven, Egremont, Gosforth, and Seascale, sparking a major manhunt by the Cumbria Constabulary, with assistance from Civil Nuclear Constabulary officers.

Bird, a 52-year-old local taxi driver, was later found dead in a wooded area, having abandoned his vehicle in the village of Boot. Two weapons that appeared to have been used in the shootings were recovered. There were 30 different crime scenes investigated, and police confirmed it was the worst shooting incident in Britain since the Dunblane school massacre, in which a total of 18 people died.

Queen Elizabeth II paid tribute to the victims and the Prince of Wales later visited Whitehaven in the wake of the tragedy. Prime Minister David Cameron and Home Secretary Theresa May also visited West Cumbria. A memorial fund has been set up to aid victims and affected communities.

Let me refresh your strangely deficient memory about the Hungerford case, Noir ...

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


The Hungerford massacre was a series of random shootings in Hungerford, Berkshire, on 19 August 1987, when Michael Robert Ryan, an unemployed part-time antique dealer and handyman, killed sixteen people, including his own mother, before committing suicide. The shootings, committed using a handgun and two semi-automatic rifles, occurred at several locations, including a school he had once attended. A police officer died in the incident, and many people were injured. No firm motive for the killings has ever been established. It remains one of the worst firearms atrocities in UK history.

A report was commissioned by the Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was passed in the wake of the massacre, which bans the ownership of semi-automatic centre-fire rifles and restricts the use of shotguns with a capacity of more than three cartridges.

Hungerford, 1987. A crackdown on gun ownership followed. Dunblane, 1996 ... another crackdown on gun ownership followed. BUT, it didn't stop the Cumbria killings, by 2010 ...

Noir. When you get down to it, it isn't guns that are the problem ... it's PEOPLE. America has its share of nutters. But so does the UK. So do ALL parts of the world. And, if they want to kill badly enough, they'll find a way.

The real question is ... HOW FREE SHOULD CITIZENS BE, TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND THEIR LOVED ONES, FROM THOSE NUTTERS ?

If you had your way ... not free AT ALL.

AND THAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM !

[Drummond]

Judging by his picture, I think he's simply "young". Not a crime and we've all been there. For some like me, over 40 years ago.

... and I'm an old git, by comparison ... Max, a very fair point.

I was Left wing myself, in my early teens. I discovered my error (.. and how !!!), & grew out of it. Experience - heaps of it - showed me how monumentally misguided I'd been.

Maybe, with time, Noir will undergo his own 'epiphany' moment, from which all else will folllow. Here's hoping.

[DragonStryk72]

The question is - Why does this keep happening, again and again in America, and not in the UK, or France, or Germany etc?

Well, my theory is that's it several-fold:

1. The UK, France, Germany, and the rest of Europe would fit inside the US with room to spare... and we'd still have a higher population count, so using any one of those as comparison doesn't really fit.

2. We have a lot more derision as a country right now, as we have essentially formed into two camps, with each blaming the other for everything wrong with the country. It builds up tension without any real solutions, and is especially a problem because our governmental system is reliant on unity in order to prosper.

3. Mental illness, and the slapdash way we put people on mental meds, is likely playing a part. Many of the drugs that help with diseases right now, also have side effects like homicidal/suicidal urges, so even if someones is "in treatment", they might still be a threat by sheer point of the medication they're taking.

4. A tendency to demonize inanimate objects (Flags, guns, that darned rock and roll music, D&D, GTA IV, etc.), has created a problem that we look only at the superficial, and do not use due diligence in order to get to the root of what is causing this.

[Drummond]

Well, my theory is that's it several-fold:

1. The UK, France, Germany, and the rest of Europe would fit inside the US with room to spare... and we'd still have a higher population count, so using any one of those as comparison doesn't really fit.

2. We have a lot more derision as a country right now, as we have essentially formed into two camps, with each blaming the other for everything wrong with the country. It builds up tension without any real solutions, and is especially a problem because our governmental system is reliant on unity in order to prosper.

3. Mental illness, and the slapdash way we put people on mental meds, is likely playing a part. Many of the drugs that help with diseases right now, also have side effects like homicidal/suicidal urges, so even if someones is "in treatment", they might still be a threat by sheer point of the medication they're taking.

4. A tendency to demonize inanimate objects (Flags, guns, that darned rock and roll music, D&D, GTA IV, etc.), has created a problem that we look only at the superficial, and do not use due diligence in order to get to the root of what is causing this.:clap::clap::clap:

A very good answer, one with a lot more depth and insight than I could've managed myself.

I'd add, though, that deference to authority figures in the UK has led to a difference in psychology, which means that people are more accepting of being 'disempowered' ... leading to an acceptance of deferring the use of force to authority figures, rather than individuals wanting to own and carry guns.

This is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, we have people like Noir, who buy into an acceptance of our status quo, and want to promote it, seeing the 'greater individual freedom' model as inferior, leading to greater death and destruction. On the other .. a sense of disempowerment can adversely affect people, those not inclined to be accepting of it. If mentally unstable, they over-compensate, and become criminally minded, perhaps even to the point where they want to WIELD that power through weaponry of their own.

Your own point about population differences was a very good one, DragonStryk. We in the UK only have around 20 percent of the population of America. Expand the numerical incidence of gun crimes fivefold ... then, Noir,that could make for a fairer comparison ...

[Noir]

A couple of points, Noir - and by the way, I think that to a degree you're being disingenuous.

First point: the frequency of shootings is bound to be greater in a Society where the availability of guns is itself greater. I take that point .. for what it's worth.

Good.


BUT ... what IS it worth ?

Human lives.


Guns are one form of weapon. There are others. For example, knife crime in the UK ... do you suggest that it doesn't happen, that knife-wielding gangs are unknown in Britain ?


Is it reasonable to live in a society without knives? I don't think so. Is it reasonable to live in a society without guns? Yes i do think so.


What about beheadings ?? Drummer Lee Rigby - and what happened to him, in south London ... AND .. . the fact that, because gun-carrying is so rare in Britain, nobody could usefully do anything about that incident as it was unfolding.

Okay, so imagine we lived in a society with guns, Lee Rigby is walking down the street, and gets run over by a car and shot dead. What then do you expect those in immediate area to do?


Another beheading case occurred in the autumn of 2014, in north London .. Edmonton, N9 area, in Nightingale Road, a street I happen to know well, having once lived within a mile of it !! A maniac invaded back gardens, carrying a machete, and successfully beheaded an elderly lady. Tell me .. could anyone, a neighbour, maybe, have STOPPED him, through the use of a gun ??

We don't know if they could or couldn't have.


How about the England riots, of 2011 ? Started in Tottenham .. it spread to nearby Enfield 24 hours later, then to major English cities over the week that followed. How many of those rioters were stopped in their tracks, say, by shopkeepers, protecting their properties from looting or arson ?? Would the carpet store in Lordship Lane, Tottenham, never been burned to the ground, the upstairs flat where a family was living, NOT been gutted by fire, if just ONE person could've warded off attackers by using a gun ??

Noir, you lament the relative ease of gun ownership in the US. But how much of what I've described could've been prevented, if ONLY attackers could have been stopped by people armed with guns who used them to protect life and property ?


Will the rioters be carrying guns?



And as I've suggested, you're being a little disingenuous in any case. Not actually school shootings, maybe ... but the UK has had its share of nutters opening up with guns, even despite the stringency of our laws. I shall cite two examples, of this, which 'strangely', you somehow 'failed to find' ..... (!!) ...

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



Let me refresh your strangely deficient memory about the Hungerford case, Noir ...

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



Hungerford, 1987. A crackdown on gun ownership followed. Dunblane, 1996 ... another crackdown on gun ownership followed. BUT, it didn't stop the Cumbria killings, by 2010 ...

Noir. When you get down to it, it isn't guns that are the problem ... it's PEOPLE. America has its share of nutters. But so does the UK. So do ALL parts of the world. And, if they want to kill badly enough, they'll find a way.

The real question is ... HOW FREE SHOULD CITIZENS BE, TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND THEIR LOVED ONES, FROM THOSE NUTTERS ?

If you had your way ... not free AT ALL.

AND THAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM !

In this one quote box you have named Hungford, Dunblane and Cumbria. If you add in the 7/7 bombings and Shepards Bush murderers (1966), then these 5 events are the only registered massacres in Great Britain since 1842 (Going back to the 'Preston strike of 1842). Five nationwide massacres in 170 years, vs almost yearly school shootings alone, where do you think your loved ones are safer?

[tailfins]

... and I'm an old git, by comparison ... Max, a very fair point.

I was Left wing myself, in my early teens. I discovered my error (.. and how !!!), & grew out of it. Experience - heaps of it - showed me how monumentally misguided I'd been.

Maybe, with time, Noir will undergo his own 'epiphany' moment, from which all else will folllow. Here's hoping.

Hummpf! I never was; I'm better than that! It's funny to watch parents scratch their head when one as a child says "I want to be like Grandpa."

[DragonStryk72]

Is it reasonable to live in a society without knives? I don't think so. Is it reasonable to live in a society without guns? Yes i do think so.

So, we'll get rid of the guns for arbitrary reasons that won't stop, lower, or in any way slow down the violence? What precisely would be the point, then?

Okay, so imagine we lived in a society with guns, Lee Rigby is walking down the street, and gets run over by a car and shot dead. What then do you expect those in immediate area to do?

Well, since you've already arbitrarily closed the scenario, there's not much to do, which is what you're leading to. The scenario, if someone else with a gun goes more like this: When he opens fire, gunmen also draws, either gunning him down then, while there is little to no other loss of life, or, at the least, distracts the killer long enough that more people are able to evac the area.

We don't know if they could or couldn't have.

Well actually, we do. Unless that guy was the fucking Highlander, a bullet in the brainpan pretty much ends the whole scenario. Let's also bear in mind that beheading with a machete actually takes time. For one, it's a chopping weapon, so right there, you're going to need to get the target into a prone position so you can get a proper hacking motion. There's also this mistaken belief that beheading is quick, which isn't really true, as it usually takes several hacks in order to actually sever the head. So yes, a person with a gun could have stopped it, period. It's a decent possibility given the scenario.

Will the rioters be carrying guns?

Actually, guns rarely get used by rioters, by and large. Most riots are a mass of humans, making any ability to properly aim disappear as you get shoved and jostled. So even if they had guns, they're going to have fuck all for accuracy, and the cops still have armor on.


In this one quote box you have named Hungford, Dunblane and Cumbria. If you add in the 7/7 bombings and Shepards Bush murderers (1966), then these 5 events are the only registered massacres in Great Britain since 1842 (Going back to the 'Preston strike of 1842). Five nationwide massacres in 170 years, vs almost yearly school shootings alone, where do you think your loved ones are safer?

Actually, they really aren't, yearly, and you're still stuck on the comparison issues. For point of comparison, We'll say... Columbine occurred in Portugal, Sandy hook would've occurred out in the Ukraine, with Germany having the VA Tech
shooter, and the SC shooting would've happened in Italy. So basically, if each of those countries has more than one occurrance of mass killings, then they actually exceed the number and frequency of incidents in America.

As well, we need to, again, look at nations like China, where mass stabbings are the stand-in for mass shootings. They have essentially similar kill counts, though the injured tend to have a higher rate of maiming than the shooting victims.

[Abbey Marie]

I would read from this that you think the freedom of gun ownership is the the reason for so many mass shootings, but its a price you're happy to pay.
Is that a fair statement?

What do your mental cases do when they crack? Blow up the Tube?

[KitchenKitten99]

What do your mental cases do when they crack? Blow up the Tube?


I thought that happened twice already?

[Drummond]

What do your mental cases do when they crack? Blow up the Tube?

I suppose they would, if they were inhuman enough, Abbey. As it is, terrorists beat them to it.

The point really is that cracking down on gun ownership solves nothing. Murderous violence gets shunted to other ways of expressing it , only with the means of defending against it severely, counterproductively, curtailed.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Mental issues is the culprit and what should be addressed not the specific weapon used, be a knife, pistol, rifle or baseball bat.
But those driving this freaking wagon want guns banned so they target the gun instead of the person(brain) actually doing the deed..
If I went into Walmart right now with a baseball bat , I could kill may 6 to 10 people, maybe even more. Same thing with a golf club.
Would the cry then be to ban both those items for public sale and ownership? Answer is NO!
So we must see by that comparison those using this tragedy to push their political agenda are hypocrites, liars and/or fools.
Yes, it is just that simple...-Tyr

[Drummond]

Is it reasonable to live in a society without knives? I don't think so. Is it reasonable to live in a society without guns? Yes i do think so.

All this confirms for me is that you're exercising a prejudice against guns. Guns kill (in the wrong hands). Knives kill (in the wrong hands). I suggest to you that it's the 'wrong hands' you should really be worried about, Noir.


Okay, so imagine we lived in a society with guns, Lee Rigby is walking down the street, and gets run over by a car and shot dead. What then do you expect those in immediate area to do?

If you really want to rewrite history in order to win out, let me do the same.

Lee Rigby is walking down the street. A terrorist trash tries to approach him, wielding his weapon of choice, which was NOT a gun, with intent to kill Lee Rigby in an especially barbarous manner. A law-abiding citizen is nearby, ARMED WITH A GUN, and fires it in Lee Rigby's defence.

Lee Rigby is saved. The terrorist scum is neutralised (whether killed or just incapacitated is immaterial). Job done - life saved.

Instead, of course, Lee Rigby DIED, in real life. The one thing missing was the gun that could've prevented that.


We don't know if they could or couldn't have.

NONSENSE. Surely you also saw the footage ? The machete maniac was breaking down garden fences to get to his target. There was ample time for a neighbour to intervene, WITH a gun, if one had been available. Besides .. I PERSONALLY KNOW THAT NEIGHBOURHOOD. There were various lines-of-sight available for a gun-owner to use. From another garden. From upstairs, from a neighbour's house. Even from an office block overlooking the scene, in Claverings Industrial Estate (which I've walked past on many occasions). In fact, the invaded territory was unusually accessible, for a north London residential area, for gunfire.


Will the rioters be carrying guns?

Not if their intended victims disable them first, no. Assuming that they're well armed enough to manage it, of course.


In this one quote box you have named Hungford, Dunblane and Cumbria. If you add in the 7/7 bombings and Shepards Bush murderers (1966), then these 5 events are the only registered massacres in Great Britain since 1842 (Going back to the 'Preston strike of 1842). Five nationwide massacres in 170 years, vs almost yearly school shootings alone, where do you think your loved ones are safer?

And those were incidents you 'knew nothing of', earlier .. eh ?

And answering your question ... see DragonStryk's reply about proportional sitings across Europe (which he put much more ably than I can), and the population sizes involved, for part of your answer. More directly ... I'd feel safer in an environment where those loved ones CAN be immediately protected, rather than one where they can't be, through lack of available armaments.

The victims of Dunblane. Of Hungerford. Of Cumbria. How safe did THEY feel, beforehand ? AND WHAT GOOD DID IT DO THEM .. ??

[Abbey Marie]

I suppose they would, if they were inhuman enough, Abbey. As it is, terrorists beat them to it.

The point really is that cracking down on gun ownership solves nothing. Murderous violence gets shunted to other ways of expressing it , only with the means of defending against it severely, counterproductively, curtailed.

Yup, that was my point. :cool:

[Drummond]

I thought that happened twice already?

There were two terrorist attempts at it, both during July 2005. The first succeeded (co-ordinated attacks across London, also involving a London bus, because one of the terrorists didn't reach his Tube station of choice quickly enough). The second, two weeks later, was so pathetic by comparison that it actually didn't amount to a successfully completed attack at all (much though the scum responsible would've wished otherwise) ...

[Max R.]

...or ban guns AND help treat the mentally ill.

also Do you agree that it is easier for a mentally ill person to get their hands on a gun in the U.S. than it is the UK? (Not a question you like apparently.)
What do you think the "Yes" in my answer meant?

Disagree on your attempt to repeal the Second Amendment. Banning guns won't stop gangs or domestic violence. A gun is simply a paperweight without a human being to wield it. Banning knives won't stop people from hurting each other. The solution isn't to ban knives, guns, cars, etc, but to understand and fix/cure the human proclivity to violently disagree or otherwise do harm to each other.