Gun violence in the USA

[Daweii]

34 minutes ago, Genie said:

 

I will never understand this obsession with firearms that the US has. 

The BBC

I don't understand why Americans need military weapons. I totally get that the US is a dangerous place, largely thanks to guns, but I don't understand why people choose to protect themselves with a machine gun. If they have to own anything then get a shotgun, lock it away and hope you never have to use it, but in that photo you have the politician himself with an M60, the girl in the middle with an Uzi, the wife with a Thompson. Two M16's on the right and two AR15-like rifles on the left. There is absolutely no need for that kind of firepower, and the concerning thing is that's probably 5% of their total collection, anyone with guns like that likely has an armoury at home with dozens, if not hundreds more guns. 

14 minutes ago, Genie said:

I was thinking similar, what are you going to do with a machine gun apart from have photos with it?

I wonder how many people get killed by their own firearms, I bet it’s a lot. 

In 2019 there were 39,707 deaths in the US as the result of firearms. 60% were suicides, 37% were homicides and 3% were accidental. Having a gun in the house increases the odds of death dramatically for the owner, or anyone else in the household. 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

I don't agree with the following but here's the issue.  

The USA was founded by a well armed militia that stood up to a tyranical government (The UK).  The constitution recognises this and states that a well regulated militia is necessary. It may be needed to stand up to a tyrannical government in the future.  This gives normal, law abiding citizens the right to arm themselves.  

No-one needs an assault rifle to protect the home or to protect themselves in daily life.   But that's not the intention of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. 

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.  

Freedom is arming the sheep to oppose democracy if necessary.  

History is a great teacher.  Did the ordinary law abiding German rise up to stop the tyranical but democratically elected Nazi Party?   

Edited December 6, 2021 by Mandy Lifeboats
Spelling mishsteaks

[Mandy Lifeboats]

But here is something I do agree with.  

About 66% of USA gun crime involves handguns. 

Ban handguns before worrying about assault rifles. 

It's a sad reflection on the USA that a mass shooting of 10 people with a assault rifle makes the news.  But 20 individual gang related deaths is not worth a mention. 

 

[mjmooney]

48 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

History is a great teacher.  Did the ordinary law abiding German rise up to stop the tyranical but democratically elected Nazi Party?   

Of course not, and nor could they have done had they each had a rifle. The "people's militia" argument was arguably spurious even in the muzzle-loading 18th Century, and it is an utter nonsense in the modern era of armies with tanks, artillery and jet aircraft. 

EDIT: Having said that, the Viet Cong did OK against the US military machine. 

Edited December 6, 2021 by mjmooney

[Davkaus]

2 hours ago, Daweii said:

but I don't understand why people choose to protect themselves with a machine gun

Haven't you seen the price of nukes?  

[villa89]

39 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

But here is something I do agree with.  

About 66% of USA gun crime involves handguns. 

Ban handguns before worrying about assault rifles. 

It's a sad reflection on the USA that a mass shooting of 10 people with a assault rifle makes the news.  But 20 individual gang related deaths is not worth a mention. 

You think the people who carry handguns will just stop using guns? They'll just carry sawn off shotguns or uzi's instead. 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

1 hour ago, villa89 said:

You think the people who carry handguns will just stop using guns? They'll just carry sawn off shotguns or uzi's instead. 

If you cut the supply of cheap legal guns you prevent those guns falling into the hands of criminals.  That cuts the supply of cheap black market guns.  

If gun control is the answer you have to ban everything or something.  I can see no more logical choice than ban the thing that is used to commit the most crimes.  

Edited December 6, 2021 by Mandy Lifeboats
Speeling mishsteaks

[Mandy Lifeboats]

1 hour ago, mjmooney said:

Of course not, and nor could they have done had they each had a rifle. The "people's militia" argument was arguably spurious even in the muzzle-loading 18th Century, and it is an utter nonsense in the modern era of armies with tanks, artillery and jet aircraft. 

EDIT: Having said that, the Viet Cong did OK against the US military machine. 

Afghanistan is another good example. Their well armed militia kicked out the British Empire, the USSR and the USA.  

[mjmooney]

25 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Afghanistan is another good example. Their well armed militia kicked out the British Empire, the USSR and the USA.  

Indeed. But in mainland USA? Can't see it. 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

8 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Indeed. But in mainland USA? Can't see it. 

Nor can I.  But the constitution is a historical document written in a different time.  It was amended to remove slavery. It could be amended to allow gun control.  

I did say at the very start of today's post that I don't agree with this argument.  But I can understand it.  

It's akin to asking British people to deny our constitutional obligation to put the clocks back and hour and then say "Look how dark it is" the following day.  It would not stand. 

[villa4europe]

3 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

History is a great teacher.  Did the ordinary law abiding German rise up to stop the tyranical but democratically elected Nazi Party?   

Are you suggesting that if germans had guns they'd have risen up against the nazis? 

Because it that's the case I think you're way off as to how the nazis came in to power and how the majority of their reign played out 

The nazis would be a better example as to how traditional stereotypes and fears, propaganda, lies and circumstance can lead to the public to believing something is good for them when it really isn't

[Mandy Lifeboats]

17 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

Are you suggesting that if germans had guns they'd have risen up against the nazis? 

Because it that's the case I think you're way off as to how the nazis came in to power and how the majority of their reign played out 

The nazis would be a better example as to how traditional stereotypes and fears, propaganda, lies and circumstance can lead to the public to believing something is good for them when it really isn't

No.  That's absolutely nowhere near what I am saying.  

I am saying that you cannot rely on the general population to rise up against a tyrannical government.  Let alone succeed. 

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Mandy Lifeboats
Spelling mishsteaks

[fruitvilla]

35 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

It's akin to asking British people to deny our constitutional obligation to put the clocks back and hour and then say "Look how dark it is" the following day.  It would not stand. 

Whaaaa?

[Davkaus]

19 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

Whaaaa?

Have you not heard of that in America? We've been doing it since the early 70s when the Queen said it during the first ever televised changing of the clocks. Hard to see us ever stopping now.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

Spot on @davkaus. 

I remember the first time I said it.  I was 3 years old and the family had gathered round.  I still have the home video.  

Did you get the commerative spoon at yours? 

[fruitvilla]

3 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Have you not heard of that in America? We've been doing it since the early 70s when the Queen said it during the first ever televised changing of the clocks. Hard to see us ever stopping now.

Well I live in BC. BC is considering not changing clocks. A recent referendum had 93 % of the population doing away with clock changes. Basically the Provincial Government is awaiting neighbouring US states getting on board with the idea. (Stuff Alberta) I recall going to school in the dark (late sixties early seventies?) when UK did not put its clocks back for awhile.

It's the constitutional obligation? UK does not have a constitution if I remember correctly. And it certainly would not be directing what time people set their clocks.

[MakemineVanilla]

With 400 million guns in private ownership, I can't see how the problem can be solved.

Its what they call a tragedy of the commons, where there is no incentive to give up your own gun, while the criminals keep theirs.

When they added another amendment to ban alcohol, the results weren't encouraging.

I guess you can't put the shit back in the donkey.

[fruitvilla]

4 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

I was 3 years old and the family had gathered round.  I still have the home video.  

Did you get the commerative spoon at yours? 

You stayed up to 2 in the morning at the age of 3 to watch the change the clocks?

But gun ownership is a strange thing. My neighbours are gun owners  and they by and large don't own them for defence, military or political reasons. They just want to eat Bambi's Dad.

The US seems a little different if not befuddled.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

2 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

You stayed up to 2 in the morning at the age of 3 to watch the change the clocks?

No.  The tradition is that the day after you change the clocks every true Englishman must wait until its dark and then say "Look how dark it is".   It's one of those odd traditions like burning a Guy Fawkes, watching the Queen on TV on Christmas Day and boiling the door-knobs on St Pancreas Day.  

[Mandy Lifeboats]

16 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

UK does not have a constitution if I remember correctly. And it certainly would not be directing what time people set their clocks.

Yes and no.  We have no single document.  But we have a collection of laws, common laws and other documents which form our constitution.  Something as simple as the right to a fair trial is made up from documents as old as the Magna Carta and as modern as the Human Rights Act.