Oregon School shooting

[peterb]

But we are talking about a nation that condones the free purchase of lethal weapons by pretty much anyone - with predictable results...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...-of-cowardice/

On the other hand, kinder eggs were (until recently) banned because a child might unwittingly swallow the toy and choke.

I guess unwittingly catching a bullet is OK though.

[GuidoLS]

But we are talking about a nation that condones the free purchase of lethal weapons by pretty much anyone - with predictable results...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...-of-cowardice/

On the other hand, kinder eggs were (until recently) banned because a child might unwittingly swallow the toy and choke.

I guess unwittingly catching a bullet is OK though.

Blanket statements, especially incorrect blanket statements, are really unbecoming. That would be like me saying that since the shooter was born in the UK, all Brits are psychopathic, murderous bigots once they get off the island...

IOW, no, we don't all condone it. Thanks. There are millions of us actively fighting both the culture and the availability of weapons and the hatred that drives the mass killings.

[peterb]

I'm delighted to hear that, but I was talking about National policy, and there are powerful lobby groups keen to maintain the status quo. There are murdering psychopaths in the UK, but it is harder for them to obtain firearms - the downside is the rise in knife crime, but mass killing is much harder with a knife than an automatic weapon that a private citizen has no legitimate reason to own.

My apologies if you felt I was tarring all individual Americans with the same brush. That was not my intention, but there is a national culture of gun ownership, which President Obama admits to having failed to tackle - although full marks for the intention. I'd also like to think that the majority of Americans would like to see a curb on gun ownership.

[GuidoLS]

I'm delighted to hear that, but I was talking about National policy, and there are powerful lobby groups keen to maintain the status quo. There are murdering psychopaths in the UK, but it is harder for them to obtain firearms - the downside is the rise in knife crime, but mass killing is much harder with a knife than an automatic weapon that a private citizen has no legitimate reason to own.

You'll never hear me argue in favor of the average citizen owning military grade firearms - as in fully automatic long guns, uzi's and the like, etc. I *am* a hunter - I will shoot a duck, goose or deer, as permit, season and need dictate. And that used to be the vast majority of firearms owners.

The problem with the "National Policy", as you put it, is it's our law. Not just the low end, common law stuff. Not even the British common law, under which many jurisdictions still operate under some form of. It's in our Constitution, and that's just not something you can mess with lightly. And while it is ancient history, you can sort of look at the history of your own country to kind of slam home why the 2nd amendment is so closely guarded - while the US doesn't have the best of reputations with imperialism, it wasn't us that invaded and burned down the seat of federal government back in 1812... that would have been the British - and you may well have kicked our butts if not for the fact that, with the 2nd amendment, people were actually required to own a certain set of long arms. Right or wrong, that's what set the "National Policy". Given the difficulty of making changes to the Constitution, the loud mouths and extremely deep pockets of the gun lobby, the lunatic fringe that exists in every society, and a general fear of politicians to do the right thing (and give up the gravy on their taters), it's not likely to change in my lifetime - and perhaps not the lifetimes of my grandchildren.

My apologies if you felt I was tarring all individual Americans with the same brush. That was not my intention, but there is a national culture of gun ownership, which President Obama admits to having failed to tackle - although full marks for the intention. I'd also like to think that the majority of Americans would like to see a curb on gun ownership.

Intentional or not (and I have no reason to doubt your word that it wasn't your intention), there's always the crowd that uses the wide brush. I intentionally picked my forum title for that reason - just to poke that crowd in the eye.

Truth is, there's no such thing as a National policy on pretty much anything any more. There's the left, the right, and the ultra-right, with Bernie Sanders bringing up the socialist ultra-left. There's no center anymore, and there's little to no compromise. I don't care to discuss US politics with folks outside of the US any more than I think you folks would try to explain your political system to me - especially when I think that we each think that the other side lives just a 1/2 step from anarchy, with no rhyme nor reason. Eventually, things will get back to a sense of normalcy (assuming Putin doesn't push us all over into WW3, and instead of playing Fallout 4, we'll be living it...)

[TooNice]

[...]an automatic weapon that a private citizen has no legitimate reason to own[...]

Hmm, tricky one. Overall, I do find myself in anti-gun ownership group, but I must also admit that once in my life, I would like to fire both a handgun and an automatic weapon in a shooting range for "the experience". Giving the choice of one or the other, I would forgo my curiosity to live in a country where guns are either banned or at least extremely difficult to access.

The problem is that I would consider "enthusiast / hobby" as legitimate. A person's hobby is no one else's business as long as he isn't out to harm people. Some people people collect seords, others practice martial arts which uses swords and other weapons and the truth is that if legitimacy is defined by "needs" then no hobby (collection) nor even martial arts that uses weapons have legitimacy to exist anymore (what good it is to learn how to defend yourself with a sword/spear/staff if it is not something you would / can carry in the streets).

I am sure that guns also require skills acquired through training to be used accurately so that aspect will definitely appeal to some. And once you become adept at one type of firearms, it might be natural progression wanting to practice with something more powerful / leathal / harder to handdle.

I could sympathise with that. The problem is that it seems that America routinely have people who use guns to vent their anger at society. It is really sad that those people, on top of the lives they take, also ruining it for people who are using guns responsibly.

Something about the culture needs to be changed. Few other countries where gun ownership is allowed have mass shooting s that could almost be described as routine. I am not sure if the culture I speak of is linked to the gun culture itself.. but I am thinking of the idea that if you aren't happy you have to go out and take everyone down with you. Suicides, an issue here in Japan, is horrible and suggests that part of society is not healthy and there are things that need to be fixed... but it is considerably less bad than mass shootings.

[Flibb]

while the US doesn't have the best of reputations with imperialism, it wasn't us that invaded and burned down the seat of federal government back in 1812... that would have been the British

Nothing to do with the US attempting a Canadian land grab then?

http://www.history.com/news/how-u-s-...-200-years-ago

[Flibb]

On the gun front, many country's have much higher gun ownership than the UK, but do not have the high murder rates of the USA. Canada and Switzerland are reasonably high, but have less than half the homicide rate of the USA. It does rather annoy UK gun owners when everybody points to the US to show the ills of gun ownership, but conveniently forget Canada, Switzerland, France, Germany, etc.

Personally I have no interest in shooting full auto, would like to try target pistols at some point. My club shoots a variety of target and what most people would class as military sniper rifles, UK competitions are based around military calibres, mainly because the UK NRA was founded to train people to shoot before entering the military, still does to some degree. It also gets access to cheaper ammunition, and standardises the rifles shot in competition, ammunition is issued to the competitor. There are disciplines that are more militaristic than straight target shooting, but they are shot to add a level of complexity, and to test physical fitness with run downs to the firing point.

Also about getting bigger more deadly guns, its not really something that happens. Most people just want to shoot more accurately, and possibly further. A good example would be F-Class, shot as FTR and Open, most people shoot FTR first, then move up to Open, FTR uses military calibres, Open uses civilian calibres. No though of how deadly either is, the reason to change is to decrease the group size at long range, and to deal with our interesting weather conditions. A lot of Europeans come to the UK to shoot it because they lack civilian access to long ranges (greater than 600 yards). On most ranges your more likely to see shooters wearing bondage jackets than camo (thats not me by the way)

[Saracen]

....

The problem with the "National Policy", as you put it, is it's our law. Not just the low end, common law stuff. Not even the British common law, under which many jurisdictions still operate under some form of. It's in our Constitution, and that's just not something you can mess with lightly. And while it is ancient history, you can sort of look at the history of your own country to kind of slam home why the 2nd amendment is so closely guarded - while the US doesn't have the best of reputations with imperialism, it wasn't us that invaded and burned down the seat of federal government back in 1812... that would have been the British - and you may well have kicked our butts if not for the fact that, with the 2nd amendment, people were actually required to own a certain set of long arms. Right or wrong, that's what set the "National Policy".

....

Truth is, there's no such thing as a National policy on pretty much anything any more. There's the left, the right, and the ultra-right, with Bernie Sanders bringing up the socialist ultra-left. There's no center anymore, and there's little to no compromise. I don't care to discuss US politics with folks outside of the US any more than I think you folks would try to explain your political system to me ....

Oh, I don't know. I'd have a bash at explaining our politics. If you're having trouble sleeping, that ought to cure it.

As for a certain .... ummm ... 'accident' with a box of matches in 1812, correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will) but wasn't the 2nd Amendment more about preserving the state's rights from possible militaristic encroachment by federal forces than about external threats? US Constitutional history isn't exactly my strong point, but wasn't the deal effectively that disparate states ceded some powers to Federal control, but the quid pro quo was strictly reserving others to state level, and embedding the right to guard them, by force if need be. Hence, state 'militia', etc.

Of course, exactly what the 2nd amendment means has been fought right up to US Supreme Court level a couple of times, about whether it referred to the right of those local militia's to bear arms, like National Guards, or individual citizens rights, before the SC effectively ruled it was the latter.

Also, and again correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that while gun law was reserved to state legislatures, there was some measure of federal law restricting automatic weapons. Didn't a previous president (Clinton??) manage to get something to that effect brought in in reaction to a previous outrage (Colombine??).

[TooNice]

On the gun front, many country's have much higher gun ownership than the UK, but do not have the high murder rates of the USA. Canada and Switzerland are reasonably high, but have less than half the homicide rate of the USA.

I was thinking of Switzerland actually when talking about countries with gun ownership yet doesn't suffer from the routine mass shootings. Having lived there for quite a long time in my youth, I know that pretty much every households would have a military rifles as most adult males are trained regularly until they are pretty old.

So certainly it doesn't have to end up like in America. That said the culture surrounding guns is also quite different from my impression. And I wonder, once you take out those who have a gun because it is part of their duty rather than interest / self-defense etc. what would the rate be compared to the US.

[abaxas]

McDonalds kills more people ever year than guns do.

Should we control that too?

[peterb]

I was thinking of Switzerland actually when talking about countries with gun ownership yet doesn't suffer from the routine mass shootings. Having lived there for quite a long time in my youth, I know that pretty much every households would have a military rifles as most adult males are trained regularly until they are pretty old.

So certainly it doesn't have to end up like in America. That said the culture surrounding guns is also quite different from my impression. And I wonder, once you take out those who have a gun because it is part of their duty rather than interest / self-defense etc. what would the rate be compared to the US.

Interesting comment here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonath...b_8062870.html

[peterb]

McDonalds kills more people ever year than guns do.

Should we control that too?

That is self inflicted injury!

[GuidoLS]

Oh, I don't know. I'd have a bash at explaining our politics. If you're having trouble sleeping, that ought to cure it.

As for a certain .... ummm ... 'accident' with a box of matches in 1812, correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will) but wasn't the 2nd Amendment more about preserving the state's rights from possible militaristic encroachment by federal forces than about external threats? US Constitutional history isn't exactly my strong point, but wasn't the deal effectively that disparate states ceded some powers to Federal control, but the quid pro quo was strictly reserving others to state level, and embedding the right to guard them, by force if need be. Hence, state 'militia', etc.

I'm not a Constitutional scholar, by any means, and as with many thing, where you were brought up and educated in the US dictates how many of the 'facts' were disseminated through grade school. IIRC, through college level civics, the basic theory is that (and backed up by law) the people ARE the state - so it applies directly to them. That gets stretched and distorted depending on the political party in power. I'm sure a lot of it had to do with the tech (or lack of tech) of the time - it's far easier to maintain and mobilize a local, state based militia than it is to do the same for a national based one, especially when one considers that even then, the US was significantly larger than Britain.

Of course, exactly what the 2nd amendment means has been fought right up to US Supreme Court level a couple of times, about whether it referred to the right of those local militia's to bear arms, like National Guards, or individual citizens rights, before the SC effectively ruled it was the latter.

That's what the Supreme Court does - interprets the law, and determines the Constitutionality of said law. Again, it's politics, and which party appointed the Justice (yes, I know, it's a presidential appointment - think that isn't effected by party politics and lobbyists, I have a Win10 computer that doesn't spy on you at all for sale...)

Also, and again correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that while gun law was reserved to state legislatures, there was some measure of federal law restricting automatic weapons. Didn't a previous president (Clinton??) manage to get something to that effect brought in in reaction to a previous outrage (Colombine??).

Clinton first pushed through the Brady Bill, which was a direct result of the assassination attempt on Reagan that left his press secretary wheelchair bound, and basically a physically crippled mess for the rest of his life.. That it took almost 13 years to get that through should be a good indication about how partisan this is. The following year, he pushed through the assault rifle ban - before Columbine. Thank goodness that in Columbine, ONLY 2 shotguns, a couple of pistols and a rifle were used, and ONLY 13 people ended up being murdered. Compare that to Sandy Hook, where the kid with the assault weapon killed 26 in less than a 10th of the time it took in Columbine.

Unfortunately, and kind of quietly, the assault weapon ban passed in 1994 expired in 2004... and since then, the NRA has bought pretty much every Republican and southern Democrat in the country, to the point where there is no longer any real gun control, nor will any legislative action ever pass to bring back those controls, until such point that those politicians and Wayne La Pierre no longer exist.

[GuidoLS]

Nothing to do with the US attempting a Canadian land grab then?

http://www.history.com/news/how-u-s-...-200-years-ago

An attack against British interests during a war with the British? What a concept... and History Channel? Seriously? And no - the attempted invasion of Canada came after the declaration of war, due to the continued kidnapping of American sailors, piracy against US naval interests, and a general jerk attitude exhibited because y'all lost the war, and a good chunk of land in the process.

[Flibb]

An attack against British interests during a war with the British? What a concept... and History Channel? Seriously? And no - the attempted invasion of Canada came after the declaration of war, due to the continued kidnapping of American sailors, piracy against US naval interests, and a general jerk attitude exhibited because y'all lost the war, and a good chunk of land in the process.

Britain and France were at war and the US was trading with the French, France, Britain and the US were all declaring trade embargoes against each other. The US invaded Canada very quickly after declaring war, the reason for invading is still argued about but many in Congress were in favour of a land grab either to force Britain to stop a trade embargo, or as permanent expansion.
To quote General Alexander Smyth "You will enter a country that is to become one of the United States. You will arrive among a people who are to become your fellow citizens"

You seem to think that the situation in America was the main thing concerning the British government, far from it they were more concerned with the continued Napoleonic war in Europe and Britain's continued survival.
In Britain the war of 1812 is a small part of the Napoleonic wars.
In the US its seen as the second war of independence
In Canada its seen as defining the country's independence from the US.


As to using the history channel, would you prefer wiki or on of the Canadian history networks? At least the history channel gets the correct year for the burning of Washington.

[peterb]

The Royal Marines were involved with the burning of Washington DC, but as a mark of professional respect, spared the US Marine Corps barracks. As a result, there remains a bond between these two elite forces to this day.