Also in the news

[marbles]

43 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61196311

 

I get the feeling that Ms Taylor Greene being totally OK with the events of Jan 6th and indeed doing something to incite them is one of those things that is basically common knowledge but not enough to satisfy the burden of proof in a courtroom.

That woman is a world class nut job 

 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, marbles said:

That woman is a world class nut job 

 

Indeed.

 

Which, unfortunately, says a little something about the people that voted for her.

[marbles]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Indeed.

 

Which, unfortunately, says a little something about the people that voted for her.

Well, she’s progressively gotten worse.  Hopefully those that voted for her have a change of heart come next election.

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, marbles said:

Well, she’s progressively gotten worse.  Hopefully those that voted for her have a change of heart come next election.

Well, she ran with QAnon a while back so I'm not entirely sure whether she's gotten worse or she's always been like that...but yeah, definitely agree with the second sentence.

[marbles]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Well, she ran with QAnon a while back so I'm not entirely sure whether she's gotten worse or she's always been like that...but yeah, definitely agree with the second sentence.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think she was going after kids who were survivors of school shootings - which she seems to be making a hobby of now.  

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, marbles said:

I could be wrong, but I don’t think she was going after kids who were survivors of school shootings - which she seems to be making a hobby of now.  

Ah, the Alex Jones method. Yeah, fair point that that is worse.

[Facecloth]

@marbles nobody said ridding the US of guns would be easy, but it has to start somewhere surely?

 

When you talk about people who shouldn't have guns managing to obtain them, they've obviously done so by taking from a legal owner or buying on a black market or something. None of that can happen if guns aren't so readily available.

 

Will it be easy? No. Will there be many difficult years? Yes. But something has to change. How exactly you go about it, I'm afraid i don't know, it's so ingrained in the society, but that's no excuse for doing nothing. Right now the I would assume the majority don't want change, so you have start there, by getting most people behind a movement to rid the country of guns rather than more guns being the answer to every mass shooting.

Edited 24 April 2022 by Facecloth

[marbles]

@Facecloth

I agree - however there would be too much kickback if the start was with people who feel they are protecting themselves.

As I said earlier, people want to feel safe.  Right now, they don’t so people will continue to buy guns.  It’s a catch-22 that has no answer.

As I suggested, IMO the starting point is much stricter jail sentences (sorry Deb).  Make it to where the risk is just not worth it anymore.  Will crimes still be committed? Yes.  But it will show the public that attempts are being made to make it safer.

Sorry to say this, but early release for violent criminals, and calls for defunding the police, do not make average citizens feel safe.

I honestly wish I had the answer.

I have an adult daughter, who went to public schools.  I have a young granddaughter, who will be homeschooled by my daughter because of fear for her safety.  It’s sad that was a decision 2 parents had to make.

 

oh, and just for the record.

In response to the person who said something along the lines of “walking around flashing a gun”.

Its nothing like that.  If you ever travelled to Texas - which has concealed and open carry laws, you would not know who had a weapon.  The vast majority of gun carriers do not advertise it - the ones that do, are whack jobs.

Edited 24 April 2022 by marbles

[marbles]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Ah, the Alex Jones method. Yeah, fair point that that is worse.

Don’t get me wrong - she’s always been nuts.  I think people overlook nuts at times when voting.  I just think she’s gone so overboard, that the only votes she will get are those that are not serving time for what they did on Jan 6th

Edited 24 April 2022 by marbles

[Facecloth]

30 minutes ago, marbles said:

@Facecloth

I agree - however there would be too much kickback if the start was with people who feel they are protecting themselves.

As I said earlier, people want to feel safe.  Right now, they don’t so people will continue to buy guns.  It’s a catch-22 that has no answer.

As I suggested, IMO the starting point is much stricter jail sentences (sorry Deb).  Make it to where the risk is just not worth it anymore.  Will crimes still be committed? Yes.  But it will show the public that attempts are being made to make it safer.

Sorry to say this, but early release for violent criminals, and calls for defunding the police, do not make average citizens feel safe.

I honestly wish I had the answer.

I have an adult daughter, who went to public schools.  I have a young granddaughter, who will be homeschooled by my daughter because of fear for her safety.  It’s sad that was a decision 2 parents had to make.

 

oh, and just for the record.

In response to the person who said something along the lines of “walking around flashing a gun”.

Its nothing like that.  If you ever travelled to Texas - which has concealed and open carry laws, you would not know who had a weapon.  The vast majority of gun carriers do not advertise it - the ones that do, are whack jobs.

It's a long road though, it won't be sorted in the click of a finger. So whilst it might seem impossible the movement has to start. People like you need to collectively make your voices heard. If a collective of people shouting loud enough can get a shitshow like Brexit over the line then something as sensible as getting rid of guns should be easy by comparison.

[BKLFox]

9 hours ago, marbles said:

@BKLFox

I understand and agree with what your saying, but as I asked - what’s the solution?

They can eliminate gun manufacturers, but there are already too many available.

They can try to take them from people who legally own them - but how do you think that will turn out?

What is the answer?  I’m a proponent of much stricter prison sentences for offenses involving guns.  Release non violent offenses and build more prisons - I know that won’t sit well with most on here, but I’ve heard no viable alternative solutions.

 

I think most gun owners only have them out of fear.  They don’t hunt, or probably even go to the range (I don’t hunt because I don’t believe in killing animals for sport.  I do go to the range) They have them “just in case”.  

With that being said, how do you make people feel safe?

Certainly not by releasing repeat offenders, or going easy on violent criminals.

 

As for the accidental shootings.  I worry about going down this path because of how it may sound - but the responsibility falls on the parents.  Plain and simple.  

 

 

 

Simple the answer to a solution is take away the right to own, the hard part as we all know is getting that passed.

Using a car analogy there are more RTCs today than there was in 1970, not because the standard of driving is worse but because there are more cars on the roads, take away cars RTCs reduce, simplistic but true.

 

Taking a gun away will be difficult because, as you state, fear is probably the #1 factor why most law abiding citizens carry a weapon.
I’d also assume that that fear is down to the thought of home invasion and the need to protect from an intruder but what are the odds of being broken into and having to use that weapon, for ease let’s say 1m to 1 but what are the chances of that gun being accidentally discharged, again for ease let’s say 1k to 1 still a high % but well below the reason the guns in the house in the 1st place, fear is stupid but so is regret.

 

Fear breeds fear because in every scenario 1 party is thinking has the other party got a gun, take your Police force every stop and most interactions already start at defcon 1 and is then withdrawn as proof of the officers safety is confirmed, it’s bred into them for their safety where as here a random stop usually starts friendly and builds if required and the main reason isn’t hearts and minds but the fact our officers are not expecting to be shot during their line of duty.

It’s the fear that needs to be reassured there are more legally owned guns in the US than there are citizens, the average # of guns a legal gun owner has is 5, why if the only requirement is to protect from an intruder and that’s only because the intruder fears the home owner has a gun so brings 1 and the spiral of fear continues.

 

There are more accidents resulting in needless deaths brought on by the fear of ‘what if’ than the chances of being in a ‘what if’ situation. 
We will never stop the random mass shootings or acts of terror that happens the world over but if citizens surrendered their weapons there would be an immediate reduction in accidents and overtime fear would subside due to the de-escalation of fear itself.

 

Fear is brought on by the gun, the gun is brought on by fear -> to infinity 

Edited 24 April 2022 by BKLFox

[FoxesDeb]

Education and rehabilitation, it has to be about those things. I firmly disagree with locking people away, (sorry Marbles), firstly because many stats show that it's not a deterrent, and secondly because as far as I'm aware there isn't much, if any, rehabilitation that happens in the US. Christ you have the death penalty, the most draconian of all draconian punishments, and still the murder rates are through the roof. Locking people up is in no way the right answer, and it absolutely blows my mind that anyone would think it is 

 

The US needs to educate it's people, show them that gun use is abhorrent, remove guns from people and fine those who are found to be carrying them. Stop selling them in supermarkets Ffs, and introduce proper licensing and make storing them safely under lock and key a legality. It will take years, possibly a generation, but people need to see that shooting other people is never the answer, you will always have a rogue incident of course, we had Dunblane and Hungerford, but in 30 years they are literally the only two I can remember. This shit happens in the US regularly, and they think the answer is more guns? Surely anyone with a tiny degree of common sense can see that it clearly isn't 

 

BTW I feel for you and your family's situation @marbles, I wasn't having a pop at you, just the country in general. 

Edited 24 April 2022 by FoxesDeb

[Facecloth]

@marbles I've been giving this some thought, coupled with reading @BKLFox's post above. Obviously this is dependent on public support and I have no doubt it'll never get through any house vote.

 

First you need to remove the ability to buy guns. Like over here there will be very few situations where you can own a gun, such as a shot gun as a farmer, or a sports gun. Other than that, no more guns for sale in Walmart etc. I know it a billion dollar industry and lots of people will lose work and businesses, but tough, get a job in an industry that doesn't result in the needless deaths of millions a year. Once you've removed access to purchase them you know that nobody else will legally be able to arm themselves. This not only draws a line where you can work from, it's a clear message that owning a gun is a privilege not a right.

 

Now you've drawn a line in sand, you have to deal with collecting all the gun. I assume as you need licence to have one there's a record of who has a licence. Having a licence obviously won't mean you have a gun, or just have only one, but you start an amnesty and allow people to bring them in. Once this amnesty is over anyone other than the police, security services etc and those mentioned about who are the very few still allowed to have some form of firearm, well if they are found carrying a gun, or one is found in their house then its 10-20 jail time.

 

The people you mentioned earlier who shouldn't have guns, but get hold of them, well their supply chain is cut off. They can't steal them from legal owner, or from a shop. Any that are still out there, well as stated above those who didn't hand them in will be just as culpable if their gun is used in a crime and face jail time. The ones illegally owned by criminals obviously are unlikely to be handed in, but I think you just have to accept it will take time to clean up that problem.

 

Obviously this involves a lot of trust, and it involves a huge change of mindset and the destruction of a massive industry. But you have removed the accessibility to guns for everyone, you have removed the risk of guns ended up in the wrong hands, so the fear factor is gone and you've put rules in place to punish those who illegally hold on to the their guns.  It may take years to collect all the rougue guns, and I'm sure everytime ones used people will state "If only someone else had a gun, he could have stopped him", but eventually the shooting will become less and less and eventually people will come to realise that prevention is better than cure.

 

I'm well aware this all unlikely to happen, there has to be an appetite for change, which there isn't. 

[FoxesDeb]

25 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

@marbles I've been giving this some thought, coupled with reading @BKLFox's post above. Obviously this is dependent on public support and I have no doubt it'll never get through any house vote.

 

First you need to remove the ability to buy guns. Like over here there will be very few situations where you can own a gun, such as a shot gun as a farmer, or a sports gun. Other than that, no more guns for sale in Walmart etc. I know it a billion dollar industry and lots of people will lose work and businesses, but tough, get a job in an industry that doesn't result in the needless deaths of millions a year. Once you've removed access to purchase them you know that nobody else will legally be able to arm themselves. This not only draws a line where you can work from, it's a clear message that owning a gun is a privilege not a right.

 

Now you've drawn a line in sand, you have to deal with collecting all the gun. I assume as you need licence to have one there's a record of who has a licence. Having a licence obviously won't mean you have a gun, or just have only one, but you start an amnesty and allow people to bring them in. Once this amnesty is over anyone other than the police, security services etc and those mentioned about who are the very few still allowed to have some form of firearm, well if they are found carrying a gun, or one is found in their house then its 10-20 jail time.

 

The people you mentioned earlier who shouldn't have guns, but get hold of them, well their supply chain is cut off. They can't steal them from legal owner, or from a shop. Any that are still out there, well as stated above those who didn't hand them in will be just as culpable if their gun is used in a crime and face jail time. The ones illegally owned by criminals obviously are unlikely to be handed in, but I think you just have to accept it will take time to clean up that problem.

 

Obviously this involves a lot of trust, and it involves a huge change of mindset and the destruction of a massive industry. But you have removed the accessibility to guns for everyone, you have removed the risk of guns ended up in the wrong hands, so the fear factor is gone and you've put rules in place to punish those who illegally hold on to the their guns.  It may take years to collect all the rougue guns, and I'm sure everytime ones used people will state "If only someone else had a gun, he could have stopped him", but eventually the shooting will become less and less and eventually people will come to realise that prevention is better than cure.

 

I'm well aware this all unlikely to happen, there has to be an appetite for change, which there isn't. 

Please pipe down with your western world civilised way of thinking 

[Facecloth]

.

Edited 24 April 2022 by Facecloth

[yorkie1999]

21 hours ago, marbles said:

@BKLFox

I understand and agree with what your saying, but as I asked - what’s the solution?

They can eliminate gun manufacturers, but there are already too many available.

They can try to take them from people who legally own them - but how do you think that will turn out?

What is the answer?  I’m a proponent of much stricter prison sentences for offenses involving guns.  Release non violent offenses and build more prisons - I know that won’t sit well with most on here, but I’ve heard no viable alternative solutions.

 

I think most gun owners only have them out of fear.  They don’t hunt, or probably even go to the range (I don’t hunt because I don’t believe in killing animals for sport.  I do go to the range) They have them “just in case”.  

With that being said, how do you make people feel safe?

Certainly not by releasing repeat offenders, or going easy on violent criminals.

 

As for the accidental shootings.  I worry about going down this path because of how it may sound - but the responsibility falls on the parents.  Plain and simple.  

 

 

 

You do exactly what the U.K. and Australia did, make guns illegal. Hand your gun in and you’re not a criminal.

[marbles]

21 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

You do exactly what the U.K. and Australia did, make guns illegal. Hand your gun in and you’re not a criminal.

Not sure the UK and Australia combined had the firepower associated with US citizens.

80+ million Americans have over 390 million guns.

The government saying “turn them in or else” will not work.

 

They can’t/won’t seem to do anything about criminals owning them.  They certainly not doing anything about almost a third of the adult population.

 

 

 

 

Edited 25 April 2022 by marbles

[leicsmac]

As people have alluded to upstream, the problem here isn't really the guns themselves, it's the entire mentality behind them.

 

That would be very difficult to change. But it is possible.

[marbles]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

As people have alluded to upstream, the problem here isn't really the guns themselves, it's the entire mentality behind them.

 

That would be very difficult to change. But it is possible.

I agree, but I somehow think that starts with people not feeling the need to buy/own them.

 

[WigstonWanderer]

40 minutes ago, marbles said:

I agree, but I somehow think that starts with people not feeling the need to buy/own them.

 

Perhaps could make a start by banning the semi automatic weapons that seem to be available. Also ban carrying weapons outside the home with more checks/screening in public places. Yes, I know this is difficult in the libertarian environment that has always prevailed in the States, and has seemingly reached fever pitch in recent years, but something needs to be done. The answer to too many guns cannot be more guns - a really dangerous spiral.

Edited 25 April 2022 by WigstonWanderer

[marbles]

Just now, WigstonWanderer said:

Perhaps could make a start by banning the semi automatic weapons that seem to be available. Also ban carrying weapons outside the home with more checks/screening in public places. Yes, I know this is difficult in the libertarian environment that has always prevailed in the States, and has seemingly reached fever pitch in recent years, but something needs to be done. The answer to too many guns cannot be more guns.

Again it goes back to people having the need to feel safe.

Why else carry the gun outside?

 

As for assault rifles - they definitely need to go now!

[WigstonWanderer]

57 minutes ago, marbles said:

Again it goes back to people having the need to feel safe.

Why else carry the gun outside?

 

As for assault rifles - they definitely need to go now!

Agree, but if the stats you quote are accurate, there is still a majority that don’t possess weapons.

 

As you imply, authorities need to direct their efforts to enforcement against criminals which is pretty much impossible whilst people have the legal right to carry.

They need to build a consensus amongst the majority.

 

The constitutional rights were enacted in a completely different epoch with completely different weapons, and are completely incompatible with a modern democracy, something that I fear you are in danger of losing.

Edited 25 April 2022 by WigstonWanderer

[NasPb]

Happy that le pen has lost, regardless sad for my continent and that macron has won 

[MPH]

Firstly let me say I do not own a handgun. I never have. I own a hunting rifle - deer, wild Turkeys, that kind of thing… but anyway…

 

 

But when the discussion of guns come up here in North Carolina I here several repeated arguments..

 

 

Firstly  a lot of people believe that the right to bare  arms is  enshrined in the constitution.  The constitution is something that is pretty much untouchable even by federal law. I think  you need a two thirds majority in the senate/ congress to amend the constitution and that would mean 1/2 of elected republican representatives voting against gun rights. That will never happen. Bare in mind also that there are some more centrist democrats who would also vote against limiting gun rights.

 

 

one of main arguments I hear is that if you suddenly ban guns the only people who you stand a chance of taking guns from are those who own them legally and for self defense reasons. There IS a massive gang culture  problem in  the states and people I have spoken to believe that if you ban guns  gangs are not going to shrug theirs shoulders and say “ oh well  “ and hand over their guns and if ‘good honest’  people cannot carry a gun to defend themselves and gangs know that, then you will see a massive upturn in gun crime.

 

 

and thirdly I am often told that the reason why Mexican gangs bring so many drugs across the border is because that’s what makes them the most money. If you make gun ownership illegal  or it is curtailed then suddenly there’s a lot more money to be made from bringing guns over the border.. at the moment to carry a hand gun you have to have a license and go through a police check.. you make these guns illegal then all these guns coming over the border will slip silently into criminal Hands and because they won’t  be registered the police won’t have a clue where any of them are.

 

 

It DOES seem like banning guns will be an impossible job. Maybe  better gun regulations is the way to go. 
 

Currently there’s no limit as to how many hand guns or high powered rifles someone can own. Why does someone need more than 1? I know people who have 10+ How many hands do you have?  My neighbors had their cars broken into a couple of years ago. Their GunS were taken from their cars that they were left in overnight. Why are people allowed to do that? Some people leave a gun at night on their bedside cabinet.. fair enough self defense I suppose but then they wake up and leave it there and go to work. Someone breaks in and poof gone and now it’s In criminal hands. Why are unattended guns not locked up? That’s a doable regulation right there. Regular mental health suitability checks with a counselor. Tighter restrictions on mental health assessments before allowing someone to own a gun as well.

 

there’s so many safer regulations they can do and I think that would be a better  way to go..

Edited 25 April 2022 by MPH

[yorkie1999]

5 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Agree, but if the stats you quote are accurate, there is still a majority that don’t possess weapons.

 

As you imply, authorities need to direct their efforts to enforcement against criminals which is pretty much impossible whilst people have the legal right to carry.

They need to build a consensus amongst the majority.

 

The constitutional rights were enacted in a completely different epoch with completely different weapons, and are completely incompatible with a modern democracy, something that I fear you are in danger of losing.

Maybe the yanks should amend the second amendment!