LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksBlaming the Shoe didn't discourage the underwear bomber.Originally Posted by peterb
Blaming the Shoe didn't discourage the underwear bomber.
I've kind of got to the point, sadly, where I'm more or less numbed to all of it. It's not that there's so much of it, even though there is. It's that the 24/7 news cycle constantly keeps it in your face, for no reason other than to somehow be relevant. The goalposts keep getting moved all over the place. The definitions change. There was a time when if it involved less that 10 people, it didn't even make the front page of the second section of the newspaper (those under 20, google it - it's a thing we used to get our news from back in the day). Now it' headline news on every newspaper, magazine and 'news' outlet on the TV.
The 'value' of each event changes. I normally ignore 'facts' that aren't accompanied by a link - anyone can pull numbers out of the air. But I went and googled, word for word, one claim where there had been 200+ 'mass shootings' in the US this year alone. Of course, there was no break out - not that defining things changes the fact that people were injured or killed - but raw data doesn't begin to tell the story. More than a few were murder/suicides on a family scale. Horrible. Terrible. Awful. Not a mass shooting. And that's just one example. And of those 200+ mass shootings this year alone, I've actually heard of maybe 10, including the big ones.
I also think that if people really cared enough to find out the truth, they'd go back to the days of the Reagan administration, and note that within days of him closing down all the government run mental health installations, and slashed all monies for mental health care, the gun crime/murder/mass murder/murder-suicide rates went through the roof. Every single world attention grabbing mass killing was committed by someone who was, to put it politely, mentally disabled. We have another term for it here in the US, but certain words will get people in trouble here at Hexus, so just insert your favorite turn of phrase.
And finally - comparing the situation here to the attempted terrorist attacks is going for the pretty low reaching fruit. Yes, we have a horrible gun and mental health problem here in the US. But they're homegrown, and aren't crossing your borders. The terrorists are bringing it across borders, for other ignorant ideological stupidity, and causing more ideological stupidity and hatred as a result. But it's really unrelated to this (the gun) situation.
I've gotten quite 'picky' about some of these 'charts' lately, and the one on Wiki is pretty much one of the most annoying yet. May as well plug in "7-11 shootings" or "Waffle House Shootings". We've had 3 of the latter in the last year alone here in my quiet little area of Redneck rural NC. The vast majority of the shootings on the Wiki page, during the 'modern era', were location of convenience - essentially, person A knew, guaranteed, that person B would be in that location. At least one of those 'school shootings' was the result of a kid being shot by a cop for 'being threatening with a knife'. Seriously?
Lumps of raw data, which that Wiki page essentially is, under a simple but very intentionally misleading header, do nothing for me. How many of those shootings were gang related? Murder/suicide? Staff on staff? Saw a couple in there where the custodian shot the principle for not giving out pay raises, or cutting hours. I'm in no way condoning, or even pretending to understand the motivations behind, all these shootings. But if I put up a sign that says fish for sale, and half of them are scorpion fish, a quarter of them are lionfish, and the rest are sole, and some unknowing person stuck their hand in the box, what are the odds of them getting something they can use right off vs getting stung/poisoned?
No, she's still out there. I saw here with the Runaways in the '70s, and as opening act for the Police at JFK stadium in '83. She hasn't aged a decade since... and she's outlived JFK stadium.Oh... has Joan Jett stopped performing, then?
speak for yourself I clean my feet regularly !!
The problem a lot of people in the UK have understanding this US culture around guns, is that pandora's box is open.
There are so many different kinds of offensive weapons, ammunition and guns available on the black market. If you just criminalised gun ownership for responsible citizens it wouldn't change the circulation of weapons in the black market much.
Sadly people get polarized into calling for a blanket ban, this will not ever happen with the current culture surrounding weapon ownership in the states. If shooting up a primary school didn't change things, nothing will.
The culture around weapon ownership I find wrong. I was raised with guns in the house, but I knew that if someone was breaking into our place my father wouldn't reach for them. The notion that so many yanks I've met have that they would be in a state of mind prepared and ready to shoot someone is laughable at best. If it takes an intruder say 90 seconds to make it to the bedroom, and you were woken up at first sign, you are still going to be drowsy. I'm amazed at the number of people who buy a gun under the pretense of home safety yet fail to use say multi-point locks on strengthened internal doors, set up modern alarm system, put in strobing or other devices which would turn the balance on an intruder. The fact is many people claim they aren't the 2.7 times more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder group, but on average they must be. I don't begin to fathom the arrogance people have when they describe equal access to guns resulting in equality for the physically weaker / infirm. The idea that someone is alert and on guard to defend their property 24/7 is crazy, compared to the intruder who is likely to be prepared, well planned and alert.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Slight OT, watched that documentary with Reggie in USA re: Ferguson shooting. There is a part in the documentary where Reggie visits a munitions store, showed you can buy a 12 gauge shotgun for a little over $2,000, P90s, Carbine Rifles with Silent Supressors or your Dirty 'arry Revolver and many others. Some of these guns were being classed as "Home Defense something"? America and it's Gun Culture is absolutely barmy imo.
Civilians DON'T need guns, the only reason you need them is because they are legal to carry. This 2nd Amendment or the right to bear arms, I get it, it's all I ever hear Americans mentioning in various documentaries. But you aint gonna move forward unless SOMETHING changes, what that is? You guys need to figure it out.
Think theres been another shooting in America... on campus too.
Suprised it's not been reported on BBC.
The 'more likely to kill a family member' thing is a myth carefully cultivated by anti-gun groups. They use the statistics for 'Acquaintance murder' which means anyone who knows each other. Dueling drug dealers aren't family. But they are included in the statistic. Often they'll include suicides.
The fact remains that violent crime is at or close to an all time low in the US, with gun ownership at an all time high.
Quick look at published data on the FBI website does show that crime has dropped gradually between 1994 and 2013. Hard to tell whether it is thanks to gun ownership or despite gun ownerships though. There are other countries with strict gun control showing similar trends, so there is still the possibility that contrary to what the internet would sometime have me believe, we are moving towards being a more civilised world. I haven't looked at the states breakdown because I don't know which states loosened gun control in which year, but to be in the least swayed, the states which saw "great decline" in crime rate needs to have average or below average rate in the first place. My reasoning is that it is probably easier to improve more on something that is dire in the first place.
One thing I wonder, is how mass shootings are recorded in the statistics. Is every victim recorded as a separate murder? Not saying that it would change the overall statistics in any way, but I do wonder.
Regardless, the most terrifying things about mass killings with guns involved, is that there is far less the victims can do. Can't outrun a bullet and bullets can go through doors so you can't even hold a door shut with a couple of people. And that is assuming you can even get behind the door. Other than school shootings, there was that movie theatre back during summer, which isn't the first in it's kind. Basically, I think that it is fair to say that mass killings involving guns would cause more causalities than most other weapons (except bomb/gas etc.) so we have to really hope that they stay very few in numbers.
@Macman: I would have missed it on CNN too had you not mentioned it. I guess that one fatality (and several injured) isn't quite enough to make it into breaking news.
Last edited by TooNice; 09-10-2015 at 05:21 PM.
As I think has already been said, gun culture in the U.S isn't likely to change any time soon. Their mentality towards firearm ownership and the right to own firearms is just completely different to what we know in the U.K.
For instance, I remember the hand gun amnesty after the Dunblane shooting in the mid-nineties and the almost instant changes in legislation with regard to hand guns in the U.K. That was as a result of ONE tragedy. There have been countless similar events in the U.S yet very few changes. Looking in from the outside all I see is that anti-gun lobbyists shout a little louder for a while until the latest mass shooting slips from the headlines while at the same time panic buying kicks in, gun and ammunition sales go up and the second ammendment gets quoted until the NRA are blue in the face.
I find that incredibly difficult to understand as there are clearly problems that need to be addressed and they have solutions that don't necessarily attack the right for civillians to bear arms. The mass shootings that occur appear to be carried out mostly by minors. Which raises the question, what on earth is a fifteen year old doing with unsupervised, unfettered access to a semi-automatic pistol, AR-15 or hunting rifle in the first place? My first introduction to firearms was a neighbour of ours who owned a couple of gun safes worth of shotguns and rifles and I remember the police paying regular visits to his house to make sure everything was as it should be and locked away. Can the same not be done in the U.S? Are similar practices in place over there and I just don't know about them? I know that there are always going to be exceptions and cases where the rules will be bent and broken but ensuring that firearms are locked away safely and out of easy reach to teenagers seems like a no-brainer. As does a proper background check and a waiting period upon purchase but as far as I know background checks are only mandatory on ALL purchases in SOME states and it's a similar story for waiting periods.
Personally, I'm not sure the second ammendment is being used as it was intended, or that its intended purpose is even relevant any more. My understanding (and I am very happy to be corrected about this because I like to learn things) is that its intention is to allow the public to maintain an organised, armed militia to ensure the security of their state. My interpretation of that is that in the event of foreign invasion the people can defend themselves or perhaps in case a totalitarian government needs overthrowing they'll have the tools at their disposal to do just that. It doesn't really speak to personal protection against other citizens or anyones right to carry a .44 Magnum around their local Costco and gun owners in the U.S don't seem as if they're organising themselves "just in case" either. At least most of them don't anyway and those that do organise themselves are (rightly or wrongly) largely seen as doomsday preppers or domestic terrorists.
Whether the second ammendment is being taken in the right context or not though, what harm does it do to better ensure the security and responsible use of the weaponry owned by civillians? That's the bit that really boggles my mind. I don't think an outright ban would work, or that it's even the right thing to do. A gun is a tool, in the same way my chainsaws are tools and as long as they're used responsibly neither tool poses a threat to society or anyone elses life. I can absolutely understand the appeal of owning one (or more) as well. I just can't understand why the government doesn't make more of an effort to ensure they stay out of the hands of children.
Correlation does not equal causality.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
So much of the US history was founded on guns so I think there's traditional aspect to owning one more prevelant there than here given their lack of it . ( Americans are far more into their history than we are from what I've seen )
I still disagree with it though.
I wonder how many of "they" are there. Going by polls I've Googled, the pro-gun group is certainly sizeable. But if every American citizens got to vote on the issue, what would the outcome might be. Is it really the "American culture", or is highly divisive issue in America? Hard to call it a countries culture IF about half the population not aren't just indifferent, but absolutely hate it.
It is a very divisive issue, with a massive shift toward increasing support for gun rights compared to even a few years ago. I like to blame the internet for everything, so my opinion is that access to information has been the driving force for this shift. It's often pushed as a partisan issue, and while certainly more Republicans own firearms, plenty of Democrats do too. There has been no real push for gun control in recent years. The support simply isn't there.
The POLITICAL support isn't there.
Proud gun owner here. Couple of shotguns. 3 long guns. 2 handguns - one is a souvenir of military days gone by (Colt 1911 model 45 - the standard side arm for many years). The firing pin has been removed, although I can field strip and re-assemble in slightly less than 50 seconds. The other is a 9mm, and is exclusively for home defense. I get certified every year, even though it's not required in NC - it was required in TN. In South Carolina, there's practically no regulation to buy, and even less for concealed carry. I'm a more moderate Republican, and IMO, nobody that's not in a uniform and on duty has any need nor business with an assault/assault style weapon. M16's and work alikes. AR-15's. Uzi's. Kalashnikov's. There's no valid reason to have one of these weapons by a civilian. I also don't believe there's any need for these huge capacity magazines in pistols. We aren't at war, and I don't think that even Putin or Dumb Bum Ill are stupid enough to invade the US. We may not show off all the military hardware like they do - we certainly do have it. Even the National Guard here in Podunkville has 2 tanks.
No, I disagree. There isn't a massive push for gun support. There's a massive spending spree by groups like the NRA making it seem like there's a national push for it. The funny thing is, nobody is really against gun ownership. It's just that the party on the right seems to think there's an issue with background checks and licensing... got to have a photo id to vote, but no problem just buying a gun and ammo and potentially killing someone without one. Love the logic there.
You mention you have a 9mm handgun for home defense. That's not a bad choice for an able bodied man with a reasonable amount of proficiency. While that is an ideal scenario, what about for a partially disabled woman without a great deal of upper arm strength? Should she have the right to defend herself? If she were your friend and came to you for advice on home protection, what would you recommend? I hope you would talk about firearms safety, the need for proper training, offer to take her to the range and gun store, and encourage her to look for a 9mm carbine. Preferably an AR pattern.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
