Gun violence in the USA

[Daweii]

4 hours ago, AVFCDAN said:

It’s slightly worrrying how casually this one has been brushed aside really, that’s hundreds of lives ruined and it’s business as usual 24 hours later.

This shooter didn't set a high score so it'll be considered as a non-event compared to a more deadly school shooting. 

The only way we're going to see the kind of outrage we recently saw is if a killer tops the recent Stoneman Douglas score, or shoots up an infant school and goes after the Sandyhook high score.

I'm not trying to be insensitive either, it's just the reality of it.

It's the same as other mass shootings. There have been 100 mass shootings in the US since the start of 2018, heard of many of them? Nope cause that guy in Las Vegas set the high score and now every other mass shooting isn't special enough. 

Every shooting from here on out will be merely a footnote on that days happenings until someone sets a new high score, or at the very least comes close. 

[Chindie]

It's an increasingly boring story, unfortunately. There's even a well worn, to the point of parody and satire, narrative for the response. The only times this changes are when the act is particularly heinous (body count or victims) or when there is an unusual response - Parkland only became as big as it was because the students managed to respond and demand change.

Not that they will ever get anything.

So this madness will go on. They like their guns too much. They have a well established lobbying group that punches above its weight through careful choices in targets and being a single issue lobby undistracted by any other goal. And too many politicians are too easily bought.

So on it'll go. Mad responses will continue - metal detectors, clear school bags, armed security - whilst the obvious stares them clear in the face. Because a bunch of people like their Rambo fantasies and power trips.

As said before, America made a clear decision after Sandy Hook. Guns are worth more than dead kids.

[TheAuthority]

3 hours ago, Chindie said:

As said before, America made a clear decision after Sandy Hook. Guns are worth more than dead kids.

I agree. I also have another thought which probably won't be popular: If Sandy Hook had happened under a white Democratic President it's possible that something may have changed.

However, the GOP had whipped it's base into such a frenzy that Obama was "comin' fer their gurns" and relentlessly painted him as a black, muslim socialist that the resistance against sensible gun legislation under his watch was firmly set in stone. Any reaction to the heinous acts at Sandy Hook were a non-starter.

Feel free to shoot the idea down.

Edited May 19, 2018 by TheAuthority

[LondonLax]

3 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

I agree. I also have another thought which probably won't be popular: If Sandy Hook had happened under a white Democratic President it's possible that something may have changed.

However, the GOP had whipped it's base into such a frenzy that Obama was "comin' fer their gurns" and relentlessly painted him as a black, muslim socialist that the resistance against sensible gun legislation under his watch was firmly set in stone. Any reaction to the heinous acts at Sandy Hook were a non-starter.

Feel free to shoot the idea down.

I know it is not possible to make comparisons between countries but on that point, the much referenced Australian response to the mass shooting in Tasmania was brought about by a conservative politician tightening gun laws with the backing of the opposition left wing party and the initial UK response to Dunblane was brought in by John Major with the backing (and further legislation) by New Labour.

Perhaps if Sandy Hook had happened under a Republican you might have seen some bipartisan responses to it over there?   

[snowychap]

31 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

the initial UK response to Dunblane was brought in by John Major with the backing (and further legislation) by New Labour

The backing of the Labour party...

Just to say that you've missed out Hungerford, the response to which happened under Thatch (and I'm assuming was supported by the opposition at the time).

[TheAuthority]

55 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

I know it is not possible to make comparisons between countries but on that point, the much referenced Australian response to the mass shooting in Tasmania was brought about by a conservative politician tightening gun laws with the backing of the opposition left wing party and the initial UK response to Dunblane was brought in by John Major with the backing (and further legislation) by New Labour.

Perhaps if Sandy Hook had happened under a Republican you might have seen some bipartisan responses to it over there?   

Quite possibly.

However it seems highly unlikely that anything will be done in the current climate because each side is so polarized. 2nd amendment, freedom loving patriot Republicans on one side. Liberal leftie, gays and people of color who hate freedom on the other.

[Dom_Wren]

17 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

People get killed with cars and vans. I drive a car and I don't want to give it up. People get stabbed to death. I have knives that I want to keep for working in the garden and eating my lunch.

I need a car to commute, to see family, to transport large items and to earn a living. I need knives to cut twine and steak and carpet.

Who needs guns? 

If I liked bombing stuff down the beach, and I was very sensible and grown up and responsible about blowing shit up that would be fine. But if legalising bombs meant 0.01% of bombers used them to blow up schools. I'd realise pretty quickly, I was part of a problem.

Because I don't need bombs, like people don't need guns.

Part of the solution, or part of the problem. It really genuinely is that simple with guns. I appreciate we'll disagree.

That’s fair enough. And yes we disagree. And I also appreciate that. 

[Dom_Wren]

20 hours ago, mjmooney said:

Dom, how can you look at your gun collection and not feel sick? 

Honestly mate. 100% easily. Again non confrontational. 

[Dom_Wren]

21 hours ago, PompeyVillan said:

Yes I do. 

I genuinely think that guns are unnecessary, and if you insist on carrying then you're part of the problem, you're condoning gun violence. You can't blame it all on bad guys and the mentally ill, shooting people with guns is as American as Apple Pie and Girdiron. The president even wants to arm teachers so that there are more shootouts at schools. 

Of course, it's up to America, if they want guns, school shootings and mass murderer rampages and all, that's their decision. 

 

I 100% disagree that as a law abiding gun owning citizen that I am 1.) part of any problem. 2) condone gun violence. 

 

I havent blamed anything on anyone. 

 

As a teacher I’ve already voiced my absolute  opposition to arming teachers. 

[mjmooney]

7 hours ago, snowychap said:

The backing of the Labour party...

Just to say that you've missed out Hungerford, the response to which happened under Thatch (and I'm assuming was supported by the opposition at the time).

Can't compare it with Britain. It's not like the Conservative party are pro-gun ownership - we simply don't have a gun-owning culture. The only people who were affected by the handgun ban after Dunblane were the tiny minority of target shooters - who grumbled a little, but understood and accepted it. 

America, on the other hand, has such a weird obsession with guns that they can't see what's in front of their eyes. 

[LondonLax]

14 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Can't compare it with Britain. It's not like the Conservative party are pro-gun ownership - we simply don't have a gun-owning culture. The only people who were affected by the handgun ban after Dunblane were the tiny minority of target shooters - who grumbled a little, but understood and accepted it. 

America, on the other hand, has such a weird obsession with guns that they can't see what's in front of their eyes. 

America is a big country though and the majority of Americans don't have a gun obsession. The trouble is, the minority who do love guns REALLY love guns. 

[StefanAVFC]

30% have a gun, and of the 70% who don't own one, 36% see themselves getting one.

Small minority...

[Ikantcpell]

99.9% of gun owners dont do mass shootings.

Why should they have to suffer for the few idiots who do?

[mjmooney]

17 minutes ago, Ikantcpell said:

99.9% of gun owners dont do mass shootings.

Why should they have to suffer for the few idiots who do?

"Suffer"? 

[colhint]

I had a thought about a possible solution. As I understand it the second amendment says you have the right to bear  arms basically to protect against a loopy government.

So if one of the kids from the school shooting applies to build a nuclear bomb on the basis that he/she has the right to bear arms against the government and argues that the Government has them so citizens should have similar arms. Obviously it'll be kicked out, but if they go as far as the supreme court , the court has to decide if she has the right to bear arms or not. Or at least look at the amendment.

[Xela]

29 minutes ago, colhint said:

I had a thought about a possible solution. As I understand it the second amendment says you have the right to bear  arms basically to protect against a loopy government.

Sorry. I always think of this though

Edited May 20, 2018 by Xela

[StefanAVFC]

1 hour ago, Ikantcpell said:

99.9% of gun owners dont do mass shootings.

Why should they have to suffer for the few idiots who do?

99.999% of Muslims don't commit terrorist attacks. Why are the right so anti-Muslim?

[a m ole]

people who want guns and aren’t allowed them suffer?

[chrisp65]

will nobody spare a thought for the poor gun owners and their suffering

[sharkyvilla]

2 hours ago, colhint said:

I had a thought about a possible solution. As I understand it the second amendment says you have the right to bear  arms basically to protect against a loopy government.

So if one of the kids from the school shooting applies to build a nuclear bomb on the basis that he/she has the right to bear arms against the government and argues that the Government has them so citizens should have similar arms. Obviously it'll be kicked out, but if they go as far as the supreme court , the court has to decide if she has the right to bear arms or not. Or at least look at the amendment.

Ironically the people who argue that are largely responsible for electing one of the loopiest Presidents of all time.  One who wants to do military parades on their streets.