Gun violence in the USA

[mjmooney]

12 hours ago, il_serpente said:

No, but if we arm the teachers it would be a different story.   They'd prevent anyone but the gunman from being injured, because a 5-foot tall  middle-aged woman who trained to be an educator wouldn't have the hesitation or fear of someone who trained in law enforcement and would be an expert marksman the first time in their life they needed to fire a gun.   Oh, and they'd be so eager to take on this totally divergent role that we wouldn't have to pay them any more than their already ridiculously low salaries.

 

[KentVillan]

3 hours ago, Nicho said:

 

• If self defense against bears, cougars ect is your reason im sure under UK rules farmers ect could have one on similar grounds. Its justifiable and mangeable. 
• The argument that it is hard to do so dont do it is a standard failing in business, as is this is how weve always done it. I assume it fails in Chicago as their is general production still happening for the states/cities that dont have strict laws. It needs to be a nation solution not a city one, that has proved to work all around the world. 

It’s worth noting that America is not the only country that allows civilians to own guns (including those designed mainly to kill people).

So I think there is a solution that allows a rural homeowner to have a rifle in their house (as per Switzerland).

The obvious first step imo would be to:

a) introduce much stricter background checks - I think it’s Massachusetts or Canada where they have a policy where you have to get references, background checks on criminal record etc, and then signed statements from any romantic partners you’ve had over the preceding X years. It does seem to work.

b) Stop giving civilians access to weapons that facilitate mass shootings - automatic fire, grenades, high quantities of ammunition, etc.

I know this all sounds like madness to us, because we feel so much safer living in a country with barely any guns. But I can’t see how the situation ever improves without first attempting solutions like this that still go along with the 2nd Amendment to some extent.

It’s maddening of course, and as you say, these aren’t my arguments. Just trying to understand if there is a sensible middle ground if some kind.

A crazy fact I learnt yesterday is that the US has higher levels of murder by knife than the UK. These good guys with guns really have managed to create a more violent society. All in the name of freedom.

[mjmooney]

I think the fully automatic thing is the big one. I guess some people enjoy shooting at rifle ranges - not my idea of fun, but whatever - so if you want to do that, the gun should be stored, under lock and key, at the club. The self-defence handgun is an argument to be had, but I can see no justification whatsoever for having automatic weapons in the home. 

[a m ole]

In this case it wouldn’t have made the slightest different what gun the guy had, the police left him there with those kids for nearly an hour.

[KentVillan]

4 minutes ago, a m ole said:

In this case it wouldn’t have made the slightest different what gun the guy had, the police left him there with those kids for nearly an hour.

Perhaps the police would have felt more confident confronting him if they knew he couldn't be armed like a Navy Seal. I don't think people talk enough about the fear factor that widespread ownership of automatic weapons creates, and how it affects everyday behaviours and decision making.

[a m ole]

28 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Perhaps the police would have felt more confident confronting him if they knew he couldn't be armed like a Navy Seal. I don't think people talk enough about the fear factor that widespread ownership of automatic weapons creates, and how it affects everyday behaviours and decision making.

Absolutely true. Trust me I’m not saying the guns aren’t a problem. I’m just disgusted by what I’ve heard of the police. Uvalde has a dedicated SWAT team that pose for pictures in all their gear, where the **** were they?

[LondonLax]

1 hour ago, mjmooney said:

I think the fully automatic thing is the big one. I guess some people enjoy shooting at rifle ranges - not my idea of fun, but whatever - so if you want to do that, the gun should be stored, under lock and key, at the club. The self-defence handgun is an argument to be had, but I can see no justification whatsoever for having automatic weapons in the home. 

Fully automatic weapons are illegal in the US. Only the military are allowed access to them. 

[KentVillan]

1 minute ago, LondonLax said:

Fully automatic weapons are illegal in the US. Only the military are allowed access to them. 

The Las Vegas shooter managed to modify his weapons for automatic fire fairly easily though I think? I can’t remember exactly how he did it

[LondonLax]

1 minute ago, KentVillan said:

The Las Vegas shooter managed to modify his weapons for automatic fire fairly easily though I think? I can’t remember exactly how he did it

It’s called a ‘bump stock’. It uses the recoil of the gun to allow you to pull the trigger over and over again. 

However all new guns sold (including the AR-15) have to be one bullet per one trigger pull i.e. ‘semi-automatic’. 

[Chindie]

1 hour ago, KentVillan said:

The Las Vegas shooter managed to modify his weapons for automatic fire fairly easily though I think? I can’t remember exactly how he did it

As said above he used a modification component called a bump stock which replaces the butt of a rifle with one that allows the recoil of a shot to cause the trigger to be pulled without the shooter moving their finger repeatedly. As a result it makes a semi-automatic rifle essentially fire as fast as it can without truly being an automatic weapon - though the end result is basically identical.

Some states had bans on them, but after Las Vegas and some other shootings they enacted a federal ban making them illegal. However, as is usually the case, these things exist and a few people like them...

The US has had a ban on true automatic weapons since the 80s. All guns sold are either semi-automatic (1 trigger pull, 1 round fired, automatically reloading from a magazine or clip), revolvers or bolt action.

They also had a 10 year ban on assault-like weapons, which has long had arguments over the effectiveness (or lack) of. There are always loopholes and get arounds. Much like the gun show loophole that let the murderers at Columbine get their weapons.

[maqroll]

 

[AXD]

6 hours ago, maqroll said:

 

Some expert trolling, that. 

[mjmooney]

1 hour ago, AXD said:

Some expert trolling, that. 

I'll bet most of the audience took it at face value. 

[magnkarl]

In my mind, any weapon with an automatic loading system including pistols should be banned. Why would you need a weapon capable of carrying 100 automatically loaded rounds to 'defend yourself'? Unless you're in a zombie apocalypse, being charged by Trump supporters on Capitol hill or have some weird fetish for automatic firearms there's absolutely no need.

I've got an American colleague who is about to move back to the Atlanta area, he's been a vocal anti-gun man for his whole stint here. He's now admitted that he's going to get a gun as soon as he has his own place for 'safety'. When we discuss the likelihood of that gun actually making a dangerous situation more dangerous it's like it doesn't register. Americans seem to have this innate feeling that they will be much better and saner with a gun in their hands than anyone else, screw statistics, reasoning or logical arguments. Yehaw.

[juanpabloangel18]

Quote

 

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

 

I have never understood why this is interpreted to mean every individual US citizen has an unqualified right to own a gun. It's just not what the 2nd Amendment says.

• "Well regulated" - how else except by federal or state law. It literally says well regulated in the constitution.
• "Militia" - Specifically groups, not individuals.
• "Necessary to the security of a free State" - The purpose of this amendment is to protect the freedom of individual States (not individual people).

Am I missing something?!

[regular_john]

15 minutes ago, juanpabloangel18 said:

I have never understood why this is interpreted to mean every individual US citizen has an unqualified right to own a gun. It's just not what the 2nd Amendment says.

• "Well regulated" - how else except by federal or state law. It literally says well regulated in the constitution.
• "Militia" - Specifically groups, not individuals.
• "Necessary to the security of a free State" - The purpose of this amendment is to protect the freedom of individual States (not individual people).

Am I missing something?!

Ur mising that Murica is the freeest bestest nashun in the hole world. Wot gives that freedum? GUNS! YEEHAW!!!!

[Seal]

17 minutes ago, juanpabloangel18 said:

I have never understood why this is interpreted to mean every individual US citizen has an unqualified right to own a gun. It's just not what the 2nd Amendment says.

• "Well regulated" - how else except by federal or state law. It literally says well regulated in the constitution.
• "Militia" - Specifically groups, not individuals.
• "Necessary to the security of a free State" - The purpose of this amendment is to protect the freedom of individual States (not individual people).

Am I missing something?!

I think you are missing the part that says 'the right of people to keep and bear arms'. ;). Not that I am arguing for that right. Different times I guess. Also there might be room for some grammatical misunderstanding on my part.

[Lichfield Dean]

1 hour ago, juanpabloangel18 said:

I have never understood why this is interpreted to mean every individual US citizen has an unqualified right to own a gun. It's just not what the 2nd Amendment says.

• "Well regulated" - how else except by federal or state law. It literally says well regulated in the constitution.
• "Militia" - Specifically groups, not individuals.
• "Necessary to the security of a free State" - The purpose of this amendment is to protect the freedom of individual States (not individual people).

Am I missing something?!

It's so badly worded though, especially to modern eyes. It isn't clear if the well regulated militia is the same thing as the "people" it refers to. I mean, logically it is, and it is talking about the ability for the people to be able to prevent total government oppression etc. but it's unfortunately easily open to misinterpretation. 

It needs a rewrite imo in modern language to make it clear. Like that'll ever happen...

[AXD]

9 minutes ago, Lichfield Dean said:

It's so badly worded though, especially to modern eyes. It isn't clear if the well regulated militia is the same thing as the "people" it refers to. I mean, logically it is, and it is talking about the ability for the people to be able to prevent total government oppression etc. but it's unfortunately easily open to misinterpretation. 

It needs a rewrite imo in modern language to make it clear. Like that'll ever happen...

Blasphemy, the founding father were perfect human beings and everything they did or write was perfect for all of eternity.

I do agree with the part about government oppression though, that is in their minds all the time, they need to be able to defend themselves from tyrants (as they had just done at the time this was written). These days I doubt Cletus could fight off the US army, the most powerfull army in the world, with his shotgun, or even the Proud Boys, some sort of militia would probably not last more than a few seconds. But still they think they can. 

[villa4europe]

9 minutes ago, AXD said:

Blasphemy, the founding father were perfect human beings and everything they did or write was perfect for all of eternity.

I do agree with the part about government oppression though, that is in their minds all the time, they need to be able to defend themselves from tyrants (as they had just done at the time this was written). These days I doubt Cletus could fight off the US army, the most powerfull army in the world, with his shotgun, or even the Proud Boys, some sort of militia would probably not last more than a few seconds. But still they think they can. 

That's what I never get, these are the types that proudly believe that they have the best army in the world, best trained, best equipped, put them on a superhero pedestal off fighting the enemies of the USA abroad*, do all this honouring veteran stuff, salute the flag and sing the song every morning. .. But if they step out of line they're gonna march to Washington and sort them out... That makes no sense, the general public are not taking on the US army any time soon so why do they need to be able to buy the same weapons and equipment? 

* and that whole superhero status is my personal belief as to why America has this mass shooting problem and they will never accept or change that