Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Many people said something similar in the UK until Dunblane, and then we, as a nation decided to act and banned handguns.

I feel we made the right decision. I believe that handguns do not belong in the hands of ordinary citizens. I gladly sacrifice my "inherent right" to own a handgun to prevent another nut job getting easy access to perpetrate another atrocity.
If you defend that right then you must be prepared to accept the consequences, and the very real chance that American children will die because of your choices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
If the President of the United States, the supposed most powerful man in the world cannot bring the NRA to heel and effect his vision of effective gun control to his own country, I would think very carefully before criticising any other Nation.

It's not his place to do so.

It might not be his place, but it is a reflection of the fact that with his enormous power, influence and resources, he cannot bring about any meaningful change in an area responsible for more American deaths than any foreign terrorist organisation.
The NRA have neutered him.
If I wished to harm Americans, I would consider the NRA an effective ally. Not only because of the loss of life caused by the ideology they support, but because they effectively polarise antipathy against the President of the US. Causing and accentuating division aids their goals.

 r_squared wrote:
Many people said something similar in the UK until Dunblane, and then we, as a nation decided to act and banned handguns.

I feel we made the right decision. I believe that handguns do not belong in the hands of ordinary citizens. I gladly sacrifice my "inherent right" to own a handgun to prevent another nut job getting easy access to perpetrate another atrocity.
If you defend that right then you must be prepared to accept the consequences

That's the big dividing line with American's vs the UK in general in regards to stuff like this. The US is fundamentally willing to accept greater risk in exchange for greater freedoms. This goes pretty much across the board, even setting guns aside, when it comes to things like freedom of speech for example, you can say things in the US that would get you a prison sentence in the UK.

and the very real chance that American children will die because of your choices.

They might also be saved in defensive gun uses. Either way, we're arguing "what if's" really in that sort of context, and in reality, despite being tragic, the number of deaths we're talking about are statistically basically negligible, particularly next to the resource investment of what a handgun ban & confiscation program would entail vs putting said resources to other uses (such as healthcare, education, infrastructure, and social services).

 r_squared wrote:
Many people said something similar in the UK until Dunblane, and then we, as a nation decided to act and banned handguns.

I feel we made the right decision. I believe that handguns do not belong in the hands of ordinary citizens. I gladly sacrifice my "inherent right" to own a handgun to prevent another nut job getting easy access to perpetrate another atrocity.
If you defend that right then you must be prepared to accept the consequences, and the very real chance that American children will die because of your choices.

So what about the fact that the vast majority of shootings in the US are committed with weapons that were acquired illegally?

People don't tend to use legally acquired guns to shoot other people with.

Plus shootings and violent crime in general are on a meteoric decline, which indicates any problem we might have is getting better.

Its also demonstrably clear that there is no causal link between shootings and increased gun ownership.

 r_squared wrote:
Apart from an inflamatory placard at a demo, there's no serious campaign to attempt to arm women with guns in cologne.

Anyway, stop trying to deflect away from Americas inability to deal with its obsession with private gun ownership. If the President of the United States, the supposed most powerful man in the world cannot bring the NRA to heel and effect his vision of effective gun control to his own country, I would think very carefully before criticising any other Nation.

POTUS is not a fething king, and many of us are thankful for that. It isn't, and never should be, the federal government's place to bring lawful organizations 'to heel'. Honestly, the belief it should be disgusts me.

About your claim that you can say things in the US that would get you arrested in the UK, can you give an example? As you're in the US, I'm sure you'll be quite safe.

I also share the aversion that other people have given to "statistically negligible" atrocities. If you can make that statement to the face of someone who has suffered that loss, then you are a far braver, and thicker skinned man than I am.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
Apart from an inflamatory placard at a demo, there's no serious campaign to attempt to arm women with guns in cologne.

Anyway, stop trying to deflect away from Americas inability to deal with its obsession with private gun ownership. If the President of the United States, the supposed most powerful man in the world cannot bring the NRA to heel and effect his vision of effective gun control to his own country, I would think very carefully before criticising any other Nation.

POTUS is not a fething king, and many of us are thankful for that. It isn't, and never should be, the federal government's place to bring lawful organizations 'to heel'. Honestly, the belief it should be disgusts me.

Are you comfortable with the fact that an unelected special interest lobby group is able to curtail the powers of an elected representative then?

 r_squared wrote:
About your claim that you can say things in the US that would get you arrested in the UK, can you give an example? As you're in the US, I'm sure you'll be quite safe.

I also share the aversion that other people have given to "statistically negligible" atrocities. If you can make that statement to the face of someone who has suffered that loss, then you are a far braver, and thicker skinned man than I am.

As I recall there was a high profile case of someone's racist posts on Facebook getting them arrested in the UK a few years ago.

As for "statistically negligible" atrocities. Something being statistically negligible doesn't make any less horrible, but it should absolutely hold sway when we are talking about making policies. Especially when those policies are trampling on Constitutional rights of 322 million people.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
Many people said something similar in the UK until Dunblane, and then we, as a nation decided to act and banned handguns.

I feel we made the right decision. I believe that handguns do not belong in the hands of ordinary citizens. I gladly sacrifice my "inherent right" to own a handgun to prevent another nut job getting easy access to perpetrate another atrocity.
If you defend that right then you must be prepared to accept the consequences, and the very real chance that American children will die because of your choices.

So what about the fact that the vast majority of shootings in the US are committed with weapons that were acquired illegally?

People don't tend to use legally acquired guns to shoot other people with.

Plus shootings and violent crime in general are on a meteoric decline, which indicates any problem we might have is getting better.

Its also demonstrably clear that there is no causal link between shootings and increased gun ownership.

Banning legally acquired handguns in the UK lead to a meteoric decline in the amount of spree killings that we suffer.

 r_squared wrote:

If you defend that right then you must be prepared to accept the consequences, and the very real chance that American children will die because of your choices.

There's also the very real chance of American children, as well as American adults, will live because a firearm was effectively used in self defense. Of course it is tragic when these shootings happen, nobody would argue otherwise, but despite what you see on the news there are many lives saved because of a civilian with a firearm.

 r_squared wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
If the President of the United States, the supposed most powerful man in the world cannot bring the NRA to heel and effect his vision of effective gun control to his own country, I would think very carefully before criticising any other Nation.

It's not his place to do so.

It might not be his place, but it is a reflection of the fact that with his enormous power, influence and resources, he cannot bring about any meaningful change in an area responsible for more American deaths than any foreign terrorist organisation.

And why should he bring about change? Again, it's not his place. The executive branch =/= the legislative branch. Despite our POTUS claiming that "most" Americans want change, "most" Americans have elected into office a Congress that reflects their will to NOT have further restriction upon firearm ownership, and it is in their hands that change rests, not the hands of the POTUS.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
About your claim that you can say things in the US that would get you arrested in the UK, can you give an example? As you're in the US, I'm sure you'll be quite safe.

I also share the aversion that other people have given to "statistically negligible" atrocities. If you can make that statement to the face of someone who has suffered that loss, then you are a far braver, and thicker skinned man than I am.

As I recall there was a high profile case of someone's racist posts on Facebook getting them arrested in the UK a few years ago.

As for "statistically negligible" atrocities. Something being statistically negligible doesn't make any less horrible, but it should absolutely hold sway when we are talking about making policies. Especially when those policies are trampling on Constitutional rights of 322 million people.

I don't remember that myself, perhaps it made the news, so it should be easy for you to provide a link. Is racism a non-prosecuteable offense in the US then?

Statistically speaking, a Facebook comment a couple of years ago also seems pretty "negligible".

 r_squared wrote:
Apart from an inflamatory placard at a demo, there's no serious campaign to attempt to arm women with guns in cologne.

Anyway, stop trying to deflect away from Americas inability to deal with its obsession with private gun ownership. If the President of the United States, the supposed most powerful man in the world cannot bring the NRA to heel and effect his vision of effective gun control to his own country, I would think very carefully before criticising any other Nation.

The president can't take away our right to own firearms because of the separation of powers and federalism. The president isn't an absolute monarch, his ability to change US law is strictly limited. The NRA gets far more credit than its due. We have centuries of private gun ownership, local, state and federal laws that enshrine our right to own firearms backed up by established legal precedence, tens of millions of gun owners and hundreds of millions of privately owned firearms. The NRA has about 4.8 million members but that's only around 5% of US gun owners. The NRA benefits from the fact that gun ownership is already widespread and enjoys strong legal protection. Anti gun people use the NRA as a scapegoat to avoid addressing the fact that a significant portion of US citizens want to own guns and have the right to do so and those truths would still be self evident and a nigh insurmountable roadblock to gun bans even if the NRA disappeared tomorrow.

 r_squared wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
Many people said something similar in the UK until Dunblane, and then we, as a nation decided to act and banned handguns.

I feel we made the right decision. I believe that handguns do not belong in the hands of ordinary citizens. I gladly sacrifice my "inherent right" to own a handgun to prevent another nut job getting easy access to perpetrate another atrocity.
If you defend that right then you must be prepared to accept the consequences, and the very real chance that American children will die because of your choices.

So what about the fact that the vast majority of shootings in the US are committed with weapons that were acquired illegally?

People don't tend to use legally acquired guns to shoot other people with.

Plus shootings and violent crime in general are on a meteoric decline, which indicates any problem we might have is getting better.

Its also demonstrably clear that there is no causal link between shootings and increased gun ownership.

Banning legally acquired handguns in the UK lead to a meteoric decline in the amount of spree killings that we suffer.

And you didn't have many guns in the general population to begin with. That's like a country with only 50 cars and 1 car crash a year banning cars and then citing that banning cars has reduced the number of automobile accidents to 0. Sure, it might be true but you didn't really accomplish anything by it.

You cannot compare any other country to the US and expect the same results. All banning guns would do is ensure law abiding citizens don't have any AND ensure that only criminals do. It wouldn't magically remove the guns off the street, and criminals aren't going to turn in their guns. So nothing would actually get solved.

You'll note that the US cities with the highest gun violence are also the ones with the most restrictive gun laws.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

If you defend that right then you must be prepared to accept the consequences, and the very real chance that American children will die because of your choices.

There's also the very real chance of American children, as well as American adults, will live because a firearm was effectively used in self defense. Of course it is tragic when these shootings happen, nobody would argue otherwise, but despite what you see on the news there are many lives saved because of a civilian with a firearm.

 r_squared wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
If the President of the United States, the supposed most powerful man in the world cannot bring the NRA to heel and effect his vision of effective gun control to his own country, I would think very carefully before criticising any other Nation.

It's not his place to do so.

It might not be his place, but it is a reflection of the fact that with his enormous power, influence and resources, he cannot bring about any meaningful change in an area responsible for more American deaths than any foreign terrorist organisation.

And why should he bring about change? Again, it's not his place. The executive branch =/= the legislative branch. Despite our POTUS claiming that "most" Americans want change, "most" Americans have elected into office a Congress that reflects their will to NOT have further restriction upon firearm ownership, and it is in their hands that change rests, not the hands of the POTUS.

I would have thought he should bring about change because people voted for him to do exactly that.

I'm also not sure that I'm convinced that the answer to firearms is more firearms, but as the US currently has a significant number of readily available weapons, and there is no desire, or strength of will to change that, perhaps teachers should be armed. It may actually help.
Personally, I would be depressed and appalled if I had to take my children to a school where their teachers had to carry weapons. In fact I would be inclined to home school them, it would seem to be a lot safer.

 r_squared wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
About your claim that you can say things in the US that would get you arrested in the UK, can you give an example? As you're in the US, I'm sure you'll be quite safe.

I also share the aversion that other people have given to "statistically negligible" atrocities. If you can make that statement to the face of someone who has suffered that loss, then you are a far braver, and thicker skinned man than I am.

As I recall there was a high profile case of someone's racist posts on Facebook getting them arrested in the UK a few years ago.

As for "statistically negligible" atrocities. Something being statistically negligible doesn't make any less horrible, but it should absolutely hold sway when we are talking about making policies. Especially when those policies are trampling on Constitutional rights of 322 million people.

I don't remember that myself, perhaps it made the news, so it should be easy for you to provide a link. Is racism a non-prosecuteable offense in the US then?

Statistically speaking, a Facebook comment a couple of years ago also seems pretty "negligible".

We don't have thought crimes like hate speech laws in the US. We do have some gakky hate crime legislation but that really just amounts to putting harsher sentences onto pre existing criminal offenses. We take our first amendment rights pretty seriously here.

 r_squared wrote:
About your claim that you can say things in the US that would get you arrested in the UK, can you give an example? As you're in the US, I'm sure you'll be quite safe.

Hrm, like this.

In the UK, if you make a facebook post about how much you hate X, Y or Z people, and how awful they are, how they deserve bad things, etc, you can be charged with a crime and sentenced to prison time or fines. In the US, you can do this all day long and the police aren't going to come knocking.

I also share the aversion that other people have given to "statistically negligible" atrocities. If you can make that statement to the face of someone who has suffered that loss, then you are a far braver, and thicker skinned man than I am.

You're appealing to emotion here rather than trying to make a logical argument, and that's how we end up with lots of silly gun laws that don't do anything. Yes, it's sad and tragic when children, or most anyone dies a senseless death. However, even if we assume firearms save no children's lives and that defensive gun uses aren't something that exists, again, society has relatively limited resources, and the number of children's lives saved by removing handguns would certainly be dwarfed by orders of magnitude by putting those resources to other uses (again, like healthcare, social services, education, etc).

One must also keep in mind that the US is a much larger place than the UK, with a far higher level of firearms ownership and a whole lot more guns in general, making a confiscation effort (even discounting resistance from segments of the populace and even law enforcement) a completely different story than what it was for the UK.

The UK also doesn't have quite the same realities that the US does. The only UK equivalent to the US-Mexico border (where someone living on the border has a not unrealistic chance of a violent encounter with people smugglers) really is Northern Ireland, which also happens to still allow handgun ownership and carry licenses.

 r_squared wrote:

I would have thought he should bring about change because people voted for him to do exactly that.

That was certainly his campaign slogan, but our ballots do not require us to give a reason why we are voting for a particular candidate, so that will have to remain a mystery.

 r_squared wrote:
Personally, I would be depressed and appalled if I had to take my children to a school where their teachers had to carry weapons.

To my knowledge there are precisely zero schools in the country that require teachers to carry weapons. There are many that offer that option to teachers, and many more that employ liason officers, but no requirements.

 r_squared wrote:

Personally, I would be depressed and appalled if I had to take my children to a school where their teachers had to carry weapons. In fact I would be inclined to home school them, it would seem to be a lot safer.

Are there schools where teachers have to carry weapons in the US?

Please give a reference for that.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
Many people said something similar in the UK until Dunblane, and then we, as a nation decided to act and banned handguns.

I feel we made the right decision. I believe that handguns do not belong in the hands of ordinary citizens. I gladly sacrifice my "inherent right" to own a handgun to prevent another nut job getting easy access to perpetrate another atrocity.
If you defend that right then you must be prepared to accept the consequences, and the very real chance that American children will die because of your choices.

So what about the fact that the vast majority of shootings in the US are committed with weapons that were acquired illegally?

People don't tend to use legally acquired guns to shoot other people with.

Plus shootings and violent crime in general are on a meteoric decline, which indicates any problem we might have is getting better.

Its also demonstrably clear that there is no causal link between shootings and increased gun ownership.

Banning legally acquired handguns in the UK lead to a meteoric decline in the amount of spree killings that we suffer.

And you didn't have many guns in the general population to begin with. That's like a country with only 50 cars and 1 car crash a year banning cars and then citing that banning cars has reduced the number of automobile accidents to 0. Sure, it might be true but you didn't really accomplish anything by it.

You cannot compare any other country to the US and expect the same results. All banning guns would do is ensure law abiding citizens don't have any AND ensure that only criminals do. It wouldn't magically remove the guns off the street, and criminals aren't going to turn in their guns. So nothing would actually get solved.

You'll note that the US cities with the highest gun violence are also the ones with the most restrictive gun laws.

I'm not going to re-cover cars vs guns, that was dealt with quite eloquently earlier in the thread as I remember.

I do agree that America is far too steeped In gun culture for any ban to be effective. In fact, youre probably right in that any change would be ineffective. It would take a massive sea change in attitude throughout the population, and tbh I doubt that will ever happen. I genuinely thought that Sandy Hook could have been your Dunblane, but all it seemed to do was tighten the grips on the stocks.
TBH, it's not my problem, and again, as long as the population of your country is happy with the situation, then that's upto you, and fine with me.
Personally I'd prefer it that people just came out and said they liked, and enjoyed using guns rather than trying to justify their ownership.

Personally, I enjoy my time on the range, there's something very satisfying about a tight grouping.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

Personally, I would be depressed and appalled if I had to take my children to a school where their teachers had to carry weapons. In fact I would be inclined to home school them, it would seem to be a lot safer.

Are there schools where teachers have to carry weapons in the US?

Please give a reference for that.

I can't, I was just commenting on a reply earlier that eluded to more firearms being used to combat the proliferation of firearms. I'm sure the NRA, and many pro gun lobbyists have stated that they would like to see school teachers armed. I could be wrong, but that was my distinct impression.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
About your claim that you can say things in the US that would get you arrested in the UK, can you give an example? As you're in the US, I'm sure you'll be quite safe.

I also share the aversion that other people have given to "statistically negligible" atrocities. If you can make that statement to the face of someone who has suffered that loss, then you are a far braver, and thicker skinned man than I am.

As I recall there was a high profile case of someone's racist posts on Facebook getting them arrested in the UK a few years ago.

As for "statistically negligible" atrocities. Something being statistically negligible doesn't make any less horrible, but it should absolutely hold sway when we are talking about making policies. Especially when those policies are trampling on Constitutional rights of 322 million people.

I don't remember that myself, perhaps it made the news, so it should be easy for you to provide a link. Is racism a non-prosecuteable offense in the US then?

Statistically speaking, a Facebook comment a couple of years ago also seems pretty "negligible".

We don't have thought crimes like hate speech laws in the US. We do have some gakky hate crime legislation but that really just amounts to putting harsher sentences onto pre existing criminal offenses. We take our first amendment rights pretty seriously here.

You don't have hate speech laws in the US, but you have hate crime legislation, is there a difference?
We also take the free speech bestowed upon us by the Magna Cart pretty seriously, so I'm not sure what you're implying?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
About your claim that you can say things in the US that would get you arrested in the UK, can you give an example? As you're in the US, I'm sure you'll be quite safe.

Hrm, like this.

In the UK, if you make a facebook post about how much you hate X, Y or Z people, and how awful they are, how they deserve bad things, etc, you can be charged with a crime and sentenced to prison time or fines. In the US, you can do this all day long and the police aren't going to come knocking.

I also share the aversion that other people have given to "statistically negligible" atrocities. If you can make that statement to the face of someone who has suffered that loss, then you are a far braver, and thicker skinned man than I am.

You're appealing to emotion here rather than trying to make a logical argument, and that's how we end up with lots of silly gun laws that don't do anything. Yes, it's sad and tragic when children, or most anyone dies a senseless death. However, even if we assume firearms save no children's lives and that defensive gun uses aren't something that exists, again, society has relatively limited resources, and the number of children's lives saved by removing handguns would certainly be dwarfed by orders of magnitude by putting those resources to other uses (again, like healthcare, social services, education, etc).

One must also keep in mind that the US is a much larger place than the UK, with a far higher level of firearms ownership and a whole lot more guns in general, making a confiscation effort (even discounting resistance from segments of the populace and even law enforcement) a completely different story than what it was for the UK.

The UK also doesn't have quite the same realities that the US does. The only UK equivalent to the US-Mexico border (where someone living on the border has a not unrealistic chance of a violent encounter with people smugglers) really is Northern Ireland, which also happens to still allow handgun ownership and carry licenses.

So, in order to make logical argument to satisfy you, we must avoid discussing anything that is distressing? How would you propose that any argument against guns be made?

I'm happy to agree that the US is very different and the circumstances are also different, and that any change that you wished to make would have considerable obstacles. That is for you to decide upon, I pointed out that the UK had fundemental shift in public opinion, and that galvanised the population to ban handguns.
It was extremely fortunate that at the time that handgun ownership reflected a tiny proportion of the overall population, and that we did not have a culture supportive of private ownership, rather one that just tolerated it. It was significantly easier for us to ban and enforce handguns than it would ever be for the US. In fact I doubt it would even be possible for you to do so, without a significant change in attitude, from within.

 r_squared wrote:

You don't have hate speech laws in the US, but you have hate crime legislation, is there a difference?
We also take the free speech bestowed upon us by the Magna Cart pretty seriously, so I'm not sure what you're implying?

With regards to hate speech laws vs hate crime laws, with a "hate crime" in the US, you actually have done something to someone for there to have been a crime, not just said bad things.

The difference fundamentally is that in the UK, it's possible to be arrested and convicted for saying bad/mean/etc things about a group of people under "Hate Speech" laws, while in the US, "Hate Crime" laws only come into play if someone, for instance, goes out and physically beats someone, and typically functions as a sentence enhancement mechanism to an already existing crime (e.g. battery) rather than a crime unto itself.

So, in order to make logical argument to satisfy you, we must avoid discussing anything that is distressing? How would you propose that any argument against guns be made?

No...but when the argument is basically "it's so sad", without looking at the greater realities of how many people are actually affected, or the resource investment that would be required, the argument falls flat.

Lets look at the Sandy Hook example. Yes it was tragic. Yes it was sad. Yes it was awful. However, is this a daily occurrence? No. Was this easily preventable? Short of confiscating all guns, if someone is willing to kill an immediate family member and then steal their weapons to go on a rampage, probably not. Was the number of dead large enough that the resources invested in preventing another such tragedy via mass confiscation wouldn't be better spent on almost anything else to net a greater total life saving value? No.

I'm happy to agree that the US is very different and the circumstances are also different, and that any change that you wished to make would have considerable obstacles. That is for you to decide upon, I pointed out that the UK had fundemental shift in public opinion, and that galvanised the population to ban handguns.
It was extremely fortunate that at the time that handgun ownership reflected a tiny proportion of the overall population, and that we did not have a culture supportive of private ownership, rather one that just tolerated it. It was significantly easier for us to ban and enforce handguns than it would ever be for the US. In fact I doubt it would even be possible for you to do so, without a significant change in attitude, from within.

And that's exactly what it boils down to. For the UK, there were vastly different social attitudes, far fewer guns in general, and that made the cost-benefit of doing such a thing far more realistic.

 r_squared wrote:
Apart from an inflamatory placard at a demo, there's no serious campaign to attempt to arm women with guns in cologne.

Anyway, stop trying to deflect away from Americas inability to deal with its obsession with private gun ownership. If the President of the United States, the supposed most powerful man in the world cannot bring the NRA to heel and effect his vision of effective gun control to his own country, I would think very carefully before criticising any other Nation.

You were saying that the women of cologne wouldn't agree with that guy on his opinion that they would understand why they might want to have a gun about them for personal security, - but there was at least one woman who does agree.

You say 'obsession' like it's a bad thing?
I think taking a rifle, a box of rounds and a few paper targets to an outdoor range gives a great sense of freedom. You can't take that away without making those people seriously consider what they pleged alleigance to every day at school.

'Better control' of firearms may be more about better recognition of mental illness; our NHS service has systems to diagnose and log these issues which will automatically disallow you from getting a firearms licence; the private hospital system in the usa allows some peole suffering mental health issues to go undiagnosed (maybe they can't afford to get diagnosed, or don't want to get diagnosed) and are then free to buy

 Grey Templar wrote:
So what about the fact that the vast majority of shootings in the US are committed with weapons that were acquired illegally?

As a quick side note, the frequently cited idea that most firearms deaths occur with illegally obtained firearms stems from a pair of studies that are (in my opinion) really, really badly flawed - one doesn't have enough data, and the other makes some pretty sweeping assumptions. I don't think it's reasonable to cite either - they both had bad methodology.

I would definitely concede the majority of homicides likely occur with illegally obtained firearms, but I don't think we can say the vast majority of shooting deaths - which if we're being honest, should include suicides - are. I don't think we know that percentage.

This is one of the reasons I think the funding ban on the CDC studying gun violence is bad policy.

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
So what about the fact that the vast majority of shootings in the US are committed with weapons that were acquired illegally?

As a quick side note, the frequently cited idea that most firearms deaths occur with illegally obtained firearms stems from a pair of studies that are (in my opinion) really, really badly flawed - one doesn't have enough data, and the other makes some pretty sweeping assumptions. I don't think it's reasonable to cite either - they both had bad methodology.

I would definitely concede the majority of homicides likely occur with illegally obtained firearms, but I don't think we can say the vast majority of shooting deaths - which if we're being honest, should include suicides - are. I don't think we know that percentage.

This is one of the reasons I think the funding ban on the CDC studying gun violence is bad policy.

Fair enough. I suppose I should have clarified that I meant homicides.

Suicides and accidental deaths aren't important in this discussion, those are entirely unrelated problems to gun violence.

Prestor Jon wrote:
We don't have thought crimes like hate speech laws in the US. We do have some gakky hate crime legislation but that really just amounts to putting harsher sentences onto pre existing criminal offenses. We take our first amendment rights pretty seriously here.

I don't think thoughtcrime means what you think it means.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
We don't have thought crimes like hate speech laws in the US. We do have some gakky hate crime legislation but that really just amounts to putting harsher sentences onto pre existing criminal offenses. We take our first amendment rights pretty seriously here.

I don't think thoughtcrime means what you think it means.

Regardless, you won't be prosecuted for saying racist things on Twitter in this country. Because it's not illegal.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but can we focus on guns and not 'thought crime'.

That depends on what one's exact words are. The First Amendment also offers zero protections against recriminatory actions by other private groups or individuals. So, for example, if you post a racist rant on your Twitter, your boss can fire you, and you have no legal grounds for a wrongful termination suit.

As to arming teachers, there's a few states that have taken that step:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/1022/Why-a-remote-Idaho-school-is-arming-teachers-with-guns

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/arming-teachers/

Seaward wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
We don't have thought crimes like hate speech laws in the US. We do have some gakky hate crime legislation but that really just amounts to putting harsher sentences onto pre existing criminal offenses. We take our first amendment rights pretty seriously here.

I don't think thoughtcrime means what you think it means.

Regardless, you won't be prosecuted for saying racist things on Twitter in this country. Because it's not illegal.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. This UK citizen was arrested and imprisoned in the US because of a website he created that supported the taliban. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35774163

It appears that because he created a website, he became a terrorist in the eyes of US law. As a UK citizen, the right to free speech in US law may not apply to him.

 r_squared wrote:
I'm not sure that's entirely true. This UK citizen was arrested and imprisoned in the US because of a website he created that supported the taliban. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35774163

It appears that because he created a website, he became a terrorist in the eyes of US law. As a UK citizen, the right to free speech in US law may not apply to him.

Sure, right to free speech applies. And that case has nothing at all to do with racism, so I'm not sure how it's got anything to do with what I said.

 SirDonlad wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
Apart from an inflamatory placard at a demo, there's no serious campaign to attempt to arm women with guns in cologne.

Anyway, stop trying to deflect away from Americas inability to deal with its obsession with private gun ownership. If the President of the United States, the supposed most powerful man in the world cannot bring the NRA to heel and effect his vision of effective gun control to his own country, I would think very carefully before criticising any other Nation.

You were saying that the women of cologne wouldn't agree with that guy on his opinion that they would understand why they might want to have a gun about them for personal security, - but there was at least one woman who does agree.

You say 'obsession' like it's a bad thing?
I think taking a rifle, a box of rounds and a few paper targets to an outdoor range gives a great sense of freedom. You can't take that away without making those people seriously consider what they pleged alleigance to every day at school.

'Better control' of firearms may be more about better recognition of mental illness; our NHS service has systems to diagnose and log these issues which will automatically disallow you from getting a firearms licence; the private hospital system in the usa allows some peole suffering mental health issues to go undiagnosed (maybe they can't afford to get diagnosed, or don't want to get diagnosed) and are then free to buy

Absolutely. Mental health issues, and disaffection are what cause most mass killings, they just choose readily available firearms as their tools.

Unfortunately it would seem that POTUS is unable to convince many Americans to address this. His budget proposals and initiatives have been strangled almost at birth http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/11/barack-obama-us-budget-2017-gun-control

The overwhelming majority of what he proposes is to address all sorts of different issues without imposing yet more restrictions on guns themselves. However there is resistance to almost every single proposal in the wide ranging effort to prevent deaths.

The problem about the sense of freedom that many would feel using a rifle or shotgun, is that it extends to weaponry that was created with the intention to be used in a military or law enforcement capacity.
In many countries people are able to manage and purchase firearms legally to indulge in sports, or for pest control and those weapons are designed with that in mind so it is unlikely that Americans would ever lose access to firearms altogether. However, there is enormous reluctance to legislate against any particular type of weapon like a handgun, as they are enormously popular, and enable people to feel safer.
Until Americans no longer feel threatened by those around them and the fear of attack, coupled with the desire to take ownership of their own personal safety which some feel unable to do without a firearm, that is unlikely to change.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
I'm not sure that's entirely true. This UK citizen was arrested and imprisoned in the US because of a website he created that supported the taliban. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35774163

It appears that because he created a website, he became a terrorist in the eyes of US law. As a UK citizen, the right to free speech in US law may not apply to him.

Sure, right to free speech applies. And that case has nothing at all to do with racism, so I'm not sure how it's got anything to do with what I said.

Because his apparent right to say whatever he likes on a US server has resulted in him being imprisoned by the authorities. You don't have to be racist to be a complete chod, and say things that others hate.

 r_squared wrote:
Many people said something similar in the UK until Dunblane, and then we, as a nation decided to act and banned handguns.

I feel we made the right decision. I believe that handguns do not belong in the hands of ordinary citizens. I gladly sacrifice my "inherent right" to own a handgun to prevent another nut job getting easy access to perpetrate another atrocity.
If you defend that right then you must be prepared to accept the consequences, and the very real chance that American children will die because of your choices.

Your starting from a situation of ignorance of what happened. Dunblane was an excuse for a small group to force through a poorly thought out law based on a hysterical media. Dunblane did not happen because of somone owning hand guns, but because of fail is time and again by the police and child protection services. People warned the police time and again that Thomas Hamilton was a danger and should not have a FAC or be near children. From his family, the scouts, people in his gun club. The police failed to act. The laws have had little effect on gun crime and only served to restrict legal ownership. The U.K. does not have the culture around guns in the US that leads to the kind of neglect actions shown in the OP.

I remember Dunblane very clearly as it happens, I was adult at the time so I'm not sure what you believe my position of ignorance is?
Other failings lead to that tragedy I will grant you, but the fact that a dangerous individual was able to access firearms, and in particular handguns allowed him to commit that atrocity more easily.
I remember being surprised that handguns were subsequently banned, and reading how our olympic athletes could no longer train in the UK in any sport involving handguns, but in retrospect it doesn't not worry me in the slightest.
It's one more link in the chain that is broken which makes mass killings using firearms in the UK to be almost completely non-existent.